THE  HISTORICITY 
OF  JESUS 


A  CRITICISM  OF  THE  CONTENTION  THAT  JESUS  NEVER 

LIVED,  A  STATEMENT   OF   THE   EVIDENCE   FOR 

HIS  EXISTENCE,  AN  ESTIMATE  OF  HIS 

RELATION  TO  CHRISTIANITY 

By         y 

SHIRLEY  JACKSON  CASE 

of  the    Department    of  Netv     Testament 

Literature  and    Interpretation    in 

the  Uni-versity  of  Chicago 


THE  UNIVERSITY  OF  CHICAGO  PRESS 
CHICAGO,  ILLINOIS 


Copyright  1912  Bv 
The  University  of  Chicago 


All  Rights  Reserved 


Published  March  19 12 


Composed  and  Printed  By 

The  University  of  Chicago  Press 

Chicago,  Illinois.  U.S.A. 


PREFACE 

The  main  purpose  of  the  present  volume  is  to 
set  forth  the  evidence  for  believing  in  the  his- 
torical reality  of  Jesus'  existence  upon  earth. 
By  way  of  approach,  the  characteristic  features 
of  more  recent  opinion  regarding  the  historical 
Jesus  have  been  surveyed,  and,  on  the  other 
hand,  the  views  of  those  who  deny  his  existence 
have  been  examined  in  detail.  The  negative 
arguments  have  been  carefully  analyzed  in 
order  accurately  to  comprehend  the  problem. 
In  presenting  the  evidence  for  Jesus'  historicity, 
an  effort  has  been  made  both  to  meet  oppo- 
nents' objections  and  at  the  same  time  to  give 
a  fairly  complete  collection  of  the  historical 
data  upon  which  belief  in  his  existence  rests. 
Finally,  the  practical  bearing  of  the  discussion 
has  been  indicated  by  briefly  considering  Jesus' 
personal  relation  to  the  founding  of  the  Chris- 
tian movement  and  his  significance  for  modern 
religion. 

The  needs  of  two  classes  of  readers  have  been 
kept  in  mind.  The  general  public,  it  is  believed, 
will  find  the  treatment  suited  to  their  tastes. 


vi  Preface 

By  a  free  use  of  footnotes  the  more  technical 
side  of  the  subject  has  also  been  presented  for 
the  benefit  of  readers  wishing  to  study  the 
question  more  minutely.  No  important  phase 
in  the  history  or  in  the  present  status  of  the 
problem  has  intentionally  been  ignored. 

The  author  has  made  free  use  of  some 
opinions  which  he  had  already  expressed  in  the 
pages  of  the  Biblical  World  and  the  American 
Journal  of  Theology,  but  these  materials  have 
been  largely  recast  in  becoming  an  integral 
part  of  the  present  work. 

Shirley  Jackson  Case 

The  University  of  Chicago 
February  15,  191 2. 


fi.      -V-^'-.-C-~'     *: 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  PAG€ 

I.  The    Historical    Jesus    of    "Liberal" 

Theology    i 

11.   The     Mythical     Christ     of     Radical 

Criticism 32 

III.  An  Estimate   of  the  Negative  Argu- 

ment:   Its  Treatment   of   the   Tra- 
ditional Evidence 62 

IV.  An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argu- 

ment:   Its  Proposed  Explanation  of 
THE  Origin  of  Christianity     ...     89 

V.   Pragmatic       Phases       of       Primitive 

Tradition 133 

VI.  The     Pauline     Evidence     for     Jesus' 

Existence 178^      r,- 


VII.  The     Gospel     Evidence     for     Jesus' 

Existence 202       '  u^it^^ 

VIII.   Extra-Biblical    Evidence    for    Jesus' 

Existence 238 

IX.  Jesus     the     Historical     Founder     of 

Christianity 271 

X.  Jesus'      Significance      for      Modern 

Religion 304 

vii 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  HISTORICAL  JESUS  OF  "LIBERAL" 
THEOLOGY 

Is  Jesus  of  Nazareth  a  historical  individual, 
or  is  he  purely  a  creation  of  fancy  ?  While  he 
is  commonly  thought  to  have  lived  in  Palestine 
nineteen  hundred  years  ago,  Christendom  has 
recently  been  disturbed  by  occasional  voices 
proclaiming  that  this  current  belief  is  altogether 
without  foundation  in  fact,  Jesus'  life  of  asso- 
ciation with  disciples,  his  ministry  of  healing 
and  teaching,  his  conflicts  with  the  religious 
leaders  of  that  day,  his  death  on  the  cross,  in 
fact  the  whole  of  his  alleged  earthly  career 
depicted  in  the  New  Testament  is  held  to  be 
entirely  fictitious.  He  is  not  to  be  classed 
among  those  historical  founders  of  religion  who 
left  so  strong  an  impression  upon  their  con- 
temporaries that  after  death  their  memory  was 
held  in  peculiar  reverence  by  their  followers; 
he  belongs  rather  with  those  heroes  of  mythol- 
ogy who  never  had  any  earthly  existence  except 
that  created  for  them  by  the  anthropomorphiz- 
ing fancy  of  naive  and  primitive  peoples. 

This  doubt  about  Jesus'  existence  is  not  an 


«/ 


2  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

entirely  new  problem.  Its  classic  expression  is 
to  be  found  with  Bruno  Bauer  more  than  half  a 
century  ago.  Yet  in  its  modern  form  it  has 
new  and  important  characteristics.  Not  only 
has  it  won  a  larger  follo\\dng  than  formerly, 
but  it  has  been  argued  in  a  variety  of  ways  and 
from  several  different  points  of  view.  It  is 
often  presented  with  a  zeal  which  challenges 
attention  even  when  the  argument  would  not 
always  command  a  hearing.  Its  advocates  are 
occasionally  accused,  and  perhaps  not  always 
unjustly,  of  displaying  a  partisan  temper  not 
consistent  with  the  spirit  of  a  truly  scientific 
research,  yet  they  sometimes  vigorously  declare 
themselves  to  be  working  primarily  in  the  inter- 
ests of  genuine  religion.  Even  though  their 
position  may  ultimately  be  found  untenable, 
the  variety  and  insistency  with  which  it  is 
advocated  cannot  well  be  ignored. 

There  is  also  a  certain  degree  of  pertinency 
about  this  recent  protest  against  Jesus'  his- 
toricity. The  problem  has  not  been  forced  to 
the  front  in  a  purely  arbitrary  fashion.  It 
might  have  been  expected  as  one  of  the  accom- 
paniments— a  kind  of  by-product  one  might 
almost  say — of  modern  criticism's  research  upon 
the  life  of  Jesus.     When  one  sees  how  radically 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "Liberal"  Theology      3 

the  traditional  conception  of  Jesus'  person  has 
been  reconstructed  by  recent  criticism,  the 
possibility  of  denying  his  very  existence  is  at 
least  suggested.  This  question  would  have 
needed  consideration  even  had  it  not  arisen  in 
the  peculiar  and  somewhat  unfortunate  manner 
in  which  it  has  recently  been  presented.  Too 
,of ten  its  discussion  has  been  left  to  those  whose 
tastes  are  seemingly  not  primarily  historical, 
and  for  whom  the  mere  possibility  of  proposing 
this  query  seems  to  have  meant  a  strong  pre- 
supposition in  favor  of  a  negative  answer. 

Moreover  the  so-called  historical  Jesus  of 
liberal  theology  is  the  specific  target  at  which 
the  skeptical  arguments  are  aimed.  The  as- 
sailants, assuming  that  the  traditional  view  of 
Jesus  is  unhistorical,  believe  that  they  can  also 
demolish  this  figure  which  the  liberal  theologians 
set  up  as  the  Jesus  of  history.  Has  modern 
criticism,  through  its  rejection  of  the  older 
views  about  Jesus,  set  in  motion  a  skeptical 
movement  which  proves  equally  destructive 
when  directed  against  its  own  reconstruction 
of  the  history?  This  seems  to  be  the  point 
from  which  the  problem  of  Jesus'  historicity 
must  at  present  be  approached. 

To  what  extent  has  the  newer  method  of 


4  The  HistoricUy  of  Jesus 

study  provoked  doubt,  or  even  supplied  a 
plausible  basis  for  questioning  Jesus'  existence  ? 
An  examination  of  the  chief  critical  attempts 
to  reconstruct  the  picture  of  Jesus  reveals  the 
following  significant  elements  of  the  so-called 
"liberal"  thought. 

In  the  first  place,  the  philosophical  presup- 
positions formerly  underlying  christological 
speculation  have  been  supplanted  by  a  world- 
view  in  which  natural  law  is  given  a  higher  and 
more  absolutely  dominant  position.  Conse- 
quently the  gospel  stories  of  Jesus'  mighty 
works  are  reinterpreted  to  bring  them  within 
the  range  of  natural  events,  or  else  they  are 
dismissed  as  utterly  unhistorical.  The  ancients 
we  are  told  were  unable  to  distinguish  critically 
between  natural  and  supernatural  acti\dties,  so 
that  many  events  which  today  would  be  ac- 
counted perfectly  normal,  seemed  in  antiquity 
wholly  abnormal  and  miraculous.  Just  as  sick- 
ness and  death  were  connected  in  thought  with 
the  action  of  superhuman  agencies,  so  to  calm 
the  excitement  of  a  lunatic,  to  stimulate  by 
mental  suggestion  the  withered  nerves  of  a  para- 
lytic, to  arouse  a  sick  person  from  a  death-like 
coma  immediately  became  miracles  of  healing 
and  resurrection. 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  ^^  Liber aV^  Theology      5 

Or,  again,  events  that  might  not  of  them-  '2- 
selves  have  seemed  unusual  may  have  been 
unduly  magnified  by  an  uncritical  and  miracle- 
loving  imagination.  To  illustrate,  it  is  held 
that  the  generous  example  of  Jesus  and  his 
disciples  in  sharing  their  food  with  the  members 
of  the  multitude  who  had  no  provisions  in- 
spired a  similar  generosity  on  the  part  of  others 
in  the  crowd,  and  out  of  this  circumstance 
grew  the  gospel  stories  of  Jesus'  feeding  the 
five  thousand  and  the  four  thousand.  Simi- 
larly Jesus'  instruction  to  Peter  to  catch  a  fish 
and  sell  it  to  procure  money  for  the  payment 
of  the  temple  tax  becomes  a  miraculous  predic- 
tion about  a  coin  to  be  found  in  a  fish's  mouth. 
A  parable  about  a  barren  fig  tree  grows  into  a 
story  of  Jesus'  unusual  power  to  wither  a  tree 
which  failed  to  supply  him  food  for  his  break- 
fast. Many  other  miracle  stories  admit  of  a 
similar  explanation,  so  it  is  asserted. 

Again,  it  is  thought  that  literary  inventive- 
ness, the  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  legends 
about  the  wonderful  doings  of  the  heroes  of 
other  religions,  and  a  desire  so  to  picture  Jesus' 
career  as  to  create  admiration  and  awe  may 
have  combined  to  produce  narratives  which 
have  not  even  a  natural  basis  in  the  actual 


6  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

history.  To  this  class  the  nativity  stories,  the 
descent  of  the  dove  at  baptism,  the  transfigura- 
tion incident,  the  resurrection  and  ascension 
narratives,  and  even  the  greater  number  of 
Jesus'  alleged  miracles,  might  conceivably  be 
assigned.  But  whether  they  were  originally 
unusual  natural  events,  or  ordinary  happenings 
magnified  into  the  miraculous,  or  mere  creations 
of  the  narrator's  imagination,  the  result  is  the 
same  for  modern  thought  of  Jesus.  He  is  no 
longer  the  miracle-working  individual  whom 
the  gospels  portray.'  And  if  in  this  particular 
the  gospel  representation  is  fictitious  perhaps 
it  is  not  surprising  that  some  persons  should 
ask  whether  the  whole  portrait  may  not  be  a 
work  of  fancy. 

'  With  the  Deistic  movement  in  England  in  the  seventeenth 
century,  and  rationalism  in  Germany  a  century  later,  there 
appeared  a  pronounced  tendency  to  rid  Christianity  of  the  miracu- 
lous. In  1696  Toland  wrote  Chrislianily  not  Mysterious,  a  Proof 
That  in  the  Gospels  Nothing  Is  Opposed  to  or  Beyond  Reason. 
Reiraarus  (Von  dem  Zwecke  Jesu  und  seiner  Jiinger:  Noch  ein 
Fragment  des  Wolfenbilttelschen  Ungenannten,  Herausgegeben 
von  G.  E.  Lessing,  Braunschweig,  1778)  expressed  the  opinion 
that  Jesus  had  not  worked  miracles,  for  had  he  possessed  this 
ability  his  failure  to  meet  the  demand  for  a  sign,  and  his  allowing 
the  crisis  at  Jerusalem  to  pass  without  displaying  his  power  to  the 
utmost,  would  be  incomprehensible.  The  "Rationalists,"  of 
whom  Paulus  {Das  Leben  Jesu  ah  Grundlage  einer  rcinen  Geschichle 
des  Urchristentums,  Heidelberg, 1828)  is  one  of  the  best  representa- 
tives, explained  all  miracles  as  natural  events.     But  Strauss  {Das 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "Liberal"  Theology      7 

Furthermore,  religious  knowledge  is  no 
longer  thought  to  be  supernaturally  acquired. 
Instead  of  relying  upon  some  record  of  a  sup- 
posedly supernatural  revelation  as  a  basis  for 
authentic  religious  knowledge,  reason  and 
human  experience  have  been  made  funda- 
mental. It  is  now  said  that  even  the  Bible 
writers  were  wholly  conditioned  by  their  own 
mental  grasp  upon  the  world  of  thought  sur- 
rounding them.  For  then  the  earth  was  a  disk 
with  the  arched  roof  of  heaven  above,  the 
abode  of  the  departed  beneath,  and  God  and 
spirits  plying  back  and  forth  in  these  regions 
■\  n  truly  anthropomorphic  fashion.  Not  only 
were  all  religious  ideas  limited  to  the  intellec- 
tual outlook  of  that  age,  but  the  religious  experi- 
ence of  the  ancients  was  primarily  the  outcome 
of  their  own  spiritual  reaction  upon  their  world. 
So  historical  events  and  persons  are  significant 
for  the  present  chiefly  as  a  means  of  enlarging 
our  sphere  of  reality,  thus  supplying  a  domain 

Leben  Jesu,  Tubingen,  1835  and  1836)  easily  showed  to  what 
absurdities  such  attempts  led,  and  he  accordingly  regarded  the 
miracle  stories  as  pure  fictions.  Since  Strauss,  "liberal "  theology 
has  not  concerned  itself  very  seriously  with  this  problem.  By 
general  agreement  the  supernaturalistic  faith  of  former  times  is 
rejected.  The  rationalistic  explanation  is  applied  to  part  of  the 
gospel  miracles,  while  for  others  the  mythical  theory  of  Strauss 
is  adopted. 


8  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

for  the  enrichment  of  thought  and  experience. 
In  other  words,  religious  knowledge  must  be 
acquired  by  the  same  laws  and  through  the 
same  channels — and  through  no  others — em- 
ployed for  the  acquirement  of  human  knowledge 
in  general. 

It  follows  that  so  far  as  religion  can  claim 
to  be  "truthful"  this  quaHty  must  inhere  in 
its  very  nature — it  cannot  be  derived  from  an 
external  authority.  Nearly  a  century  and  a 
half  ago  Lessing  expressed  the  idea  tersely  in 
his  ninth  "axiom":  "Religion  is  not  true 
because  the  evangelists  and  apostles  taught  it, 
but  they  taught  it  because  it  is  true" — or 
because  it  seemed  to  them  true,  moderns  would 
add.'  What  has  been  recorded  may  represent 
the  noblest  thought  of  a  past  age,  but  no  fact 
of  history  can  be  estabhshed  so  surely,  and  no 
notion  of  the  past  stands  so  wholly  above  the 
limited  ideas  of  its  own  age,  that  a  later  genera- 
tion may  safely  make  these  things  objective 
norms  for  testing  the  validity  of  its  knowledge. 
A  world- view  cannot  be  built  on  scripture,  nor 

'  Axiom  lo  also  puts  the  main  point  clearly:  "Ausihrer  innern 
Wahrheit  miissen  die  schriftlichen  Ueberlieferungen  erklaret  wer- 
den,  und  alle  schrif  tlichc  Ueberlieferungen  konnen  ihr  keine  innern 
Wahrheit  geben,  wenn  sie  keine  hat."  And  again:  "Zufallige 
Geschichtswahrheiten  konnen  der  Beweis  von  notwendigen  Ver- 
nunftwahrheitcn  nie  werden." 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "  Liber ar'  Theology      9 

can  the  highest  type  of  religious  experience 
result  merely  from  acceptance  of  an  objectively 
authenticated  creed.  In  the  opinion  of  "lib- 
eral" theologians,  if  the  content  of  Christian 
thinking  today  would  be  "truthful"  it  must 
answer  to  the  highest  intellectual  demands  of 
modern  times  and  must  be  in  harmony  with 
the  noblest  type  of  spiritual  ideals  at  present 
attainable. 

Accordingly  the  religious  values  of  life  are 
no  longer  thought  to  be  conditioned  by  the 
truth  or  falsity  of  alleged  historic  facts.  These 
values  have  a  self-attesting  quality  quite  apart 
from  any  supposition  as  to  where  or  how  the 
recognition  of  their  worth  first  came  to  expres- 
sion in  history.  Indeed,  to  condition  present- 
day  religious  ideals  by  norms  and  decrees  of  a 
past  age,  or  to  measure  values  by  past  standards, 
is  now  thought  detrimental  to  the  highest 
type  of  spiritual  attainment.  Bondage  to 
legalism,  whether  in  the  realm  of  thought  or 
conduct,  means  a  deadening  of  the  genuine  life 
of  the  spirit,  hence  the  need  to  break  the 
"entangling  alliance"  between  religion  and 
history  in  order  to  give  the  spirit  liberty. 
Reflection  upon  the  life  of  the  past  may  prove 
helpful  and  even  inspirational  if  one  avoids 


lo  *        The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

thinking  of  it  in  terms  of  a  deadening  legalism. 
But  the  greatest  values  of  religion  are  not  to  be 
found  fossilized  in  the  strata  of  Jewish  and 
Christian  history;  they  still  await  production 
in  the  present  and  the  future. 

When  this  modern  attitude  on  the  general 
question  of  religious  authority  is  brought  to 
bear  upon  one's  thought  of  the  historical  Jesus 
the  traditional  conception  of  his  authority  is 
radically  modified.  Since  the  "liberals"  main- 
tain that  religious  knowledge  is  neither  acquired 
nor  made  valid  by  supernatural  means  and  that 
spiritual  attainments  have  not  been  standard- 
ized once  and  for  all  time  by  supernatural 
demonstrations,  even  if  Jesus  is  assumed  to  be 
the  fountain  of  supernaturally  revealed  religious 
knowledge,  there  is  now  no  absolutely  certain 
means  of  knowing  just  v/hat  had  been  thus  re- 
vealed. The  evangelists  wrote  about  him,  as 
about  everything  else,  in  terms  of  the  limited 
notions  of  their  time.  Their  ideas — and,  so  far 
as  our  information  goes,  his  ideas  too — moved 
only  in  the  atmosphere  of  first-century  thinking, 
and  so  cannot  be  normative  for  the  truthfulness 
of  twentieth-century  thought.  And  since  religi- 
ous values  today  must  be  judged  by  the  tests  of 
modern   demands,   past   values,    though   they 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "  LiheraV^  Theology    ii 

proved  sufficient  for  the  first  century,  may  no 
longer  have  abiding  worth.  If  they  do  retain 
their  value  this  is  not  because  of  their  historic 
origin,  even  should  that  be  Jesus  himself,  but 
is  wholly  due  to  their  modern  efficiency.  Had 
they  never  before  existed,  in  all  probability 
modern  needs  would  have  produced  them  just  as 
new  values  are  being  created  today  to  meet 
contemporary  needs.  Thus  Jesus  becomes  so 
relatively  insignificant  as  an  authority  in  religi- 
ous matters  that  it  is  scarcely  strange  to  find 
an  inclination  in  some  quarters  to  deny  his 
existence  outright. 

Still  more  disturbing  is  the  fact  that  the 
Jesus  of  "liberal"  theology  is  not  a  super- 
natural person,  at  least  not  in  any  real  sense 
of  that  term  as  understood  by  the  traditional 
Christology.  The  Johannine  logos-idea  and  the 
Pauline  notion  of  pre-existence  are  not  now 
treated  as  fundamental  items  in  one's  thought 
of  the  historical  Jesus;  these  are  rather  the 
product  of  primitive  interpretation.  Also  the 
stories  in  Matthew  and  Luke  about  unusual 
happenings  attending  Jesus'  entrance  into  the 
life  of  humanity  are  believed  to  be  merely  the 
attempts  of  early  faith  to  supply  an  appro- 
priate background  in  the  imagery  of  that  day 


1 2  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

for  its  conception  of  his  uniqueness.  Jesus, 
it  is  af&med,  can  be  best  and  most  truly 
known  as  a  man  among  men,  and  his  personality- 
is  to  be  estimated  in  terms  of  the  qualities  dis- 
played in  the  ordinary  activities  of  his  earthly 
life.  All  efforts  to  make  his  origin  supernatural 
are  held  to  be  the  work  of  interpretation, 
originating  in  an  age  which  found  its  highest 
thought-categories  in  supernaturalism. 

Likewise  the  constitution  of  his  personality 
in  general  is  regarded  by  the  "liberals"  as 
belonging  wholly  in  the  natural  sphere.  His 
thinking  had  a  truly  physical  basis  in  its  con- 
tact with  local  phenomena,  and  its  processes, 
so  far  as  they  were  normal,  were  in  line  with 
regular  psychological  laws.  If  they  were  ab- 
normal they  are  to  be  placed  on  the  same  basis 
as  abnormal  mental  processes  in  general. 
Descriptions  of  personal  contact  with  Satan, 
ministrations  of  angels,  personal  communica- 
tions with  a  Moses  or  an  Elijah,  and  the  like, 
are  all  taken  as  pictures  to  express  vividly 
normally  conditioned  spiritual  experiences  of 
Jesus;  otherwise  he  must  have  been  the  victim 
of  hallucinations.  Those  who  hold  this  view 
would  not  deny  that  Jesus'  experience  was  of 
an  exceedingly  rich  and  pure  tj-pe,  but  only 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "  Liber aV  Theology    13 

that  it  was  not  something  miraculously  given 
to  him  from  without.  It  was  rather  a  personal 
attainment  through  the  ordinary  processes  of 
spiritual  activity,  and  his  uniqueness  lay  in  the 
exceptional  way  in  which  he  cultivated  these 
processes  and  in  the  unusual  quality  of  perfec- 
tion he  thus  attained. 

With  respect  to  Jesus'  mental  activities, 
"liberal"  interpretation  seems  not  to  have 
worked  its  view  out  quite  so  consistently  and 
clearly  as  at  some  other  points.  This  is  particu- 
larly true  regarding  the  question  of  his  messianic 
self-consciousness.  Beyond  all  question  his 
mental  condition  as  viewed  by  the  evangelists 
is  explicable  only  on  the  assumption  that  his 
thinking  was  supernaturally  controlled,  or  that 
he  was  mentally  unbalanced.  The  alternative 
is  to  make  the  blurred  gospel  picture  of  him 
responsible  for  the  distortion,  and  this  is  the 
solution  usually  adopted  by  "liberal"  interpre- 
tation. Yet  Jesus  is  allowed  to  set  himself 
forward  in  all  seriousness  as  the  Messiah.  At 
once  the  question  arises.  How  far  and  in  what 
sense  can  he  have  claimed  messiahship  and  still 
have  preserved  mental  normality?  We  are 
usually  told  that  he  arrived  at  this  conviction 
experientially ;     it    was    a    deduction     drawn 


14  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

from  his  sense  of  unique  spiritual  kinship  to 
God.  He  transfused  the  current  conception  of 
messiahship  with  a  supremely  spiritual  inter- 
pretation; yet  as  his  work  on  earth  failed  to 
bring  about  the  complete  establishment  of  the 
kingdom,  Jesus  came  to  believe,  and  announced 
his  conviction  to  his  followers,  that  he  would 
in  the  near  future  come  upon  the  clouds  to  set 
up  the  kingdom  in  its  perfection.  But  for  any 
individual  whose  personality  is  ex  hypothesi 
non-supernatural,  to  confer  upon  himself  the 
prerogatives  of  that  superhuman  messianic 
figure  of  apocalyptic  imagery  is  a  severe  strain 
upon  our  notion  of  normal  mental  action  even 
in  that  age.^  Hence  it  is  not  so  strange  that 
some  interpreters  should  find  Jesus  making  no 

'  DeLoosten,  Jesus  Chrislus  vom  Slandpiiiikte  des  Psychiaters 
(Bamberg,  1905),  thinks  Jesus  was  mentally  unsound  and  so  sub- 
ject to  delusions.  For  Rasmussen,  Jesus:  Einc  vergleichcnde  psy- 
cho pat  hoi  ogisc  he  Sludie  (Leipzig,  1905;  translated  from  the  Dan- 
ish Jesus,  en  sammcnUgnende  Studie,  1905),  Jesus  was  an  epileptic. 
Against  these  views  frequent  protests  have  been  made.  Kneib, 
Moderne  Leben-Jesu-Forschimg  uiiter  dem  Eiuflusse  der  Fsychiatrie 
(Mainz,  1908),  lays  the  blame  for  these  theories  upon  what  seems 
to  him  the  a-priori  exclusion  of  supernaturalism  from  Jesus*  per- 
son. His  abnormality  is  to  be  explained  by  his  divinity:  "cnt- 
weder  war  Jesus  Christus  gcisteskrank  oder  er  war  Gottmensch." 
Werner,  Die  psychischc  Gcsundhcit  Jesu  (Gross-Lichterfelde,  1909), 
contends  for  the  mental  soundness  of  Jesus,  but,  like  Kneib,  thinks 
that  any  interpretation  which  brings  Jesus  down  to  a  purely 
human  level  must  admit  his  insanity.     Weidel,  Jesu  Personlich- 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  ''Liberal'^  Theology    15 

personal  claims  to  messiahship ;  or  that  the 
more  radical  critics  should  imagine  that  his 
first  interpreters,  who  admittedly  created  his 
superhuman  personality,  may  also  have  evolved 
out  of  their  own  fancy  the  entire  picture  of  his 
earthly  career. 

The  religion  and  worship  which  grew  up  in 
the  Apostolic  age  about  the  name  of  Jesus  the 
Messiah  formerly  was  thought  to  have  been 
founded  upon,  and  fostered  by,  special  super- 
natural manifestations.  But  the  "liberal" 
estimate  of  Christianity's  historical  origin  would 
also  eliminate  these  features.  The  miraculous 
resurrection  of  Jesus  is  undoubtedly  a  tenet 
of  the  first  Christians'  faith,  but  to  go  back 
of  that  faith  and  establish  by  critical  tests  the 
reliability  of  any  corresponding  objective  fact 

keit:  Eine  psychologische  Studie  (Halle  a.S.,  1908),  adopting  the 
results  of  modern  gospel  criticism,  still  finds  Jesus  to  have  acted 
quite  unusually  but  credits  this  to  his  possession  of  an  unusual 
volitional  energy.  Schaefer,  Jesus  in  psychiatrischer  Belenchtung: 
Eine  Kontrovcrse  (Berlin,  1910),  from  the  standpoint  of  a  physi- 
cian who  is  at  the  same  time  inclined  to  liberal  theological  views, 
protests  especially  against  deLoosten's  treatment  of  Jesus  as  a 
paranoiac.  Sanday,  Christologies  Ancient  and  Modern  (Oxford, 
1910),  though  not  discussing  this  particular  topic,  finds,  in  the 
subliminal  regions  of  Jesus'  mental  life,  a  special,  divine  influence 
which  produced  a  unique  effect  in  his  conscious  mental  activities. 
The  real  problem  is  thus  pushed  a  little  farther  back  but  is  still 
left  unsolved.  Cf.  Coe,  "Religion  and  the  Subconscious," 
Atnerican  Journal  of  Theology,  XIII  (1909),  337-49. 


i6  The  II istor icily  of  Jesus 

is  held  to  be  no  longer  possible.  Furthermore, 
the  point  of  departure  for  the  early  belief  in 
Jesus'  resurrection  is  said  to  be  a  conviction  on 
the  part  of  certain  persons  that  Jesus  had  been 
seen  by  them  after  his  burial/  and  these  visions 
may  have  been  due  to  a  combination  of  purely 
natural  circumstances.  For  a  long  time  the 
disciples  had  been  under  a  severe  strain;  they 
had  passed  through  particularly  unnerving 
experiences  at  Jerusalem;  then  they  returned 
to  scenes  of  former  association  with  Jesus 
where  memories  of  him  were  newly  awakened 
and  former  hopes  revived  with  increased  power. 
These  circumstances  brought  about  unusual 
psychic  experiences  interpreted  by  those  who 
shared  them  as  visions  of  the  risen  Jesus. 
Thus  the  indelible  impression  of  his  historical 
personality  upon  their  lives  bore  its  natural 
fruitage.  He  was  "  risen  "  more  truly  than  they 
realized.  Not  ecstatic  experiences  induced  by 
an   over-wrought   nervous   condition,    nor   an 

'  In  the  New  Testament  tradition  about  the  origin  of  the 
resurrection  faith,  one  readily  recognizes  the  subordinate  place 
occupied  by  the  empty  tomb.  Its  discovery  meant  nothing  until 
some  member  of  the  company  experienced  an  "appearance." 
Cf.  Lake,  The  Resurrection  of  Jesus  Christ  (London  and  New 
York,  1907,  pp.  241-53);  and  the  present  writer's  article  "The 
Resurrection  Faith  of  the  First  Disciples"  in  the  American  Jour- 
nal of  Theology,  XIII  (1909),  169-92. 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  ^^  Liber aV  Theology    17 

interpretation  of  these  experiences  in  terms  of 
current  notions  about  the  visibihty  of  angels 
and  spirits,  but  their  own  renewed  and  increased 
spiritual  energy  truly  proved  Jesus'  return  to 
life.  The  real  corner-stone  of  the  new  religion 
was  not  the  resurrection  appearances,  but  the 
"Easter  faith"  by  which  the  spirit  of  Jesus' 
own  life  found  living  expression  in  the  person 
of  his  disciples. 

Similarly  the  whole  range  of  the  early 
church's  enthusiastic  life,  once  imagined  to  be  a 
miraculous  attestation  of  the  genuineness  of 
the  new  faith,  is  now  explained  on  the  purely 
natural  basis  of  religious  psychology.  The 
early  believers,  like  most  men  of  that  time, 
were  highly  emotional  and  superstitious.  They 
peopled  the  world  about  them  with  a  generous 
supply  of  spirits,  evil  as  well  as  good.  Any 
unusual  state  of  nervous  excitement  took  on  a 
highly  religious  significance,  and  even  ordinary 
events  were  readily  magnified  into  marvelous 
manifestations  of  the  supernatural.  Conse- 
quently the  abnormal  phases  of  life  loomed 
largest  in  their  vision,  and  they  turned  to  this 
region  above  all  others  to  find  evidence  for  the 
validity  of  their  new  faith.  Nor  was  their 
search  in  vain.     Soon  they  found  themselves 


1 8  The  II  is  lor  icily  of  Jesus 

able  to  speak  with  "tongues,"  they  performed 
"miracles,"  they  saw  visions  and  dreamed 
dreams,  angels  ministered  to  them  in  moments 
of  special  distress,  and,  indeed,  at  times  God 
drew  so  near  that  the  earth  trembled  as  did 
Mount  Sinai  in  days  of  old.  For  the  primitive 
Christians  these  experiences  were  the  divinely 
given  anticipatory  signs  of  the  coming  messianic 
age;  for  moderns  the  whole  ecstatic  life  of  that 
period  seems  to  have  become  only  an  interesting 
study  in  folk  psychology. 

Even  the  whole  scheme  of  theological  think- 
ing constructed  about  the  person  of  the  heavenly 
Christ  is  now  regarded  as  mainly  a  product  of 
the  first  interpreters'  fancy.  Paul  and  his  con- 
temporaries built  largely  upon  the  expectation 
of  Jesus'  early  return  to  bring  an  end  to  the 
present  world-order.  The  fact  of  his  ignomini- 
ous death  seemed  a  serious  objection  to  the 
doctrine  of  his  messiahship,  so  believers  were 
compelled  to  find  some  explanation  that  would 
bring  this  event  into  harmony  with  their  mes- 
sianic faith.  Paul  was  exceptionally  successful 
in  this  effort,  in  that  he  made  Jesus'  death  a 
fundamental  element  in  the  Messiah's  saving 
mission.  By  reflection  this  figure  of  the  heavenly 
Messiah  grew  in  prominence  until  he  became 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  ''Liberal"  Theology    19 

the  object  of  a  godlike  reverence  and  worship. 
In  fact,  by  degrees,  behevers  began  to  transfer 
to  the  risen  Jesus  many  notions  which  they 
formerly  would  have  entertained  with  reference 
to  God  only.  In  like  manner  the  tenets  of 
first-century  Christology  were  worked  out  to 
meet  various  inclinations  and  necessities  of 
contemporary  thinking. 

Hence  the  religion  which  has  Jesus  as  its 
object  is  to  be  sharply  distinguished  from  the 
personal  religion  of  Jesus.  It  is  now  believed 
by  the  "liberals"  that  he  did  not  set  himself 
forward  as  an  object  for  reverence  and  worship, 
but  that  his  primary  concern  was  to  point  men 
directly  to  God,  the  God  whom  he  himself 
worshiped  with  full  devotion  of  heart,  soul, 
and  mind.  In  this  way  he  entered  into  a  rich 
realization  of  sonship  to  God  and  he  craved 
for  all  men  the  blessings  of  a  similar  attainment. 
As  for  his  own  position,  the  attitude  of  deifica- 
tion assumed  by  the  early  church  after  his 
death  was  farthest  from  his  thoughts.  "He 
desired  no  other  belief  in  his  person  and  no 
other  attachment  to  it  than  is  contained  in  the 

keeping    of    his    commandments This 

feeling,  praying,  working,  struggling,  and  suffer- 
ing individual  is  a  man  who  in  the  face  of  his 


20  The  Uisloriciiy  of  Jesus 

God  also  associates  himself  with  other  men.'" 
Lessing's  sentences  on  the  ''Religion  of  Christ" 
state  the  point  so  clearly,  showing  at  the  same 
time  how  keenly  the  problem  was  grasped  more 
than  a  century  ago,  that  we  venture  to  repeat 
them  slightly  condensed: 

Whether  Christ  [i.e.,  "Jesus,"  in  modern  usage]  was 
more  than  man  is  a  problem.  That  he  was  truly  man, 
if  he  was  man  at  all,  and  that  he  never  ceased  being 
man,  is  admitted.  Consequently  the  religion  of  Christ 
and  the  Christian  religion  are  two  quite  distinct  things. 
The  former  is  that  religion  which  he  himself  as  a  man 
recognized  and  practiced,  and  which  every  man  can 
have  in  common  with  him.  The  latter  is  that  religion 
which  assumes  that  he  was  more  than  a  man  and  makes 
him  as  such  the  object  of  its  worship.  The  existence 
of  these  two  religions  in  Christ  [i.e.,  in  "Jesus"]  as  in 
one  and  the  same  person  is  inconceivable.  The 
teachings  and  principles  of  both  are  scarcely  to  be 
found  in  one  and  the  same  book;  at  least  it  is  clear  that 
the  religion  of  Christ  and  the  Christian  religion  are 
quite  differently  contained  in  the  gospels.  The  former 
is  there  expressed  most  clearly  and  distinctly.  The 
latter,  on  the  other  hand,  is  so  uncertain  and  ambiguous 
that  there  is  hardly  a  single  passage  with  which  any  two 
persons  have  connected  the  same  thought. 

But  in  the  New  Testament  story  of  the  Apos- 
tolic age  this  supernatural  figure  of  the  heavenly 

'  Harnack,  What  Is  Chrislianily  (London  and  New  York,  1901, 
pp.  125  f.;   Das  Wcscn  des  Christentums,  Leipzig,  1900). 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  '^LiberaV  Theology    21 

Christ  certainly  stands  in  the  foreground. 
The  early  Christians'  gaze  was  directed  mainly 
to  the  future,  not  to  the  past.  Their  hope  was 
in  the  Coming  One.  Recognition  of  Paul's 
lack  of  concern  with  the  earthly  Jesus  and  his 
whole-souled  devotion  to  the  heavenly  Christ 
is  a  commonplace  of  modern  thinking.  Under 
these  circumstances  it  would  appear  that  we 
must  expect  to  find  the  story  of  Jesus'  earthly 
career  so  portrayed  as  to  show  supernatural 
traits  befitting  one  who  will  later  enjoy  mes- 
sianic honors  in  the  divine  sphere.  But  if  the 
first  Christians  in  their  religion  and  worship 
formed  this  highly  colored  picture  of  the 
Christ  largely  out  of  subjective  elements  of 
their  own  thinking,  as  the  "liberals"  tell  us, 
and  then  carried  back  into  an  earthly  career 
foreshadowings  of  his  dignity  and  power,  may 
not  the  very  idea  of  an  earthly  existence  have 
the  same  subjective  origin  ?  If  so,  the  anthro- 
pomorphizing interest  was  merely  one  of  the 
steps  in  the  general  process  of  making  concrete 
and  objective  those  notions  which  seemed 
of  greatest  worth  in  primitive  religious  thinking. 
It  is  at  least  only  fair  to  admit  that  modern 
critical  study  has  prepared  the  soil  out  of  which 
queries  of  this  sort  readily  spring.     Perhaps 


22  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

they  are  only  a  mushroom  growth,  yet  it  is  not 
so  surprising  that  they  should  seem  to  some 
eyes  to  be  the  seedlings  of  giant  oaks. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  modern  critical 
study,  on  its  negative  side,  largely  discounts 
the  traditional  history  of  Jesus,  if  it  does  not 
indeed  provoke  doubt  about  his  very  existence. 
Yet  "liberal"  theology's  own  belief  in  the  his- 
toricity of  Jesus  is  not  in  the  least  disturbed. 
W^en  the  traditional  view  of  him  has  been 
virtually  demolished,  moderns  assert  that  they 
have  only  removed  fungoid  growths  from  his 
real  historical  form,  and  that  they  would  thus 
not  only  restore  his  original  figure  but  also 
make  him  more  significant  for  religious  thought. 
Accordingly  they  propose  to  return  to  Jesus — 
not  merely  to  the  gospel  representation  of  him, 
and  not  even  to  the  oldest  available  sources' 
picture  of  him,  but  back  beyond  all  these 
"interpretations"  to  the  original  Jesus  un- 
adorned by  the  fancy  of  his  admiring  followers. 
While  this  task  is  not  easy,  it  is  thought  to  be 
possible  by  means  of  a  careful  literary  and 
historical  criticism.  Its  advocates  do  not  claim 
to  be  able  to  produce  full  details  of  Jesus' 
career  but  only  to  restore  a  partial,  yet  real, 
glimpse  of  his  personalit}'.     The  main  features 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "Liberal"  Theology    23 

of  his  activity,  the  essential  elements  of  his 
teaching,  and  the  deep  impression  which  his 
life  made  upon  his  associates  are  held  to  be 
recoverable. 

Of  course  not  all  "liberal"  investigators 
agree  exactly  in  their  positive  results,  and  this 
fact  is  sometimes  used  as  an  argument  against 
the  reliability  of  any  of  their  work.  Yet,  in 
what  they  regard  as  essentials,  there  is  in  the 
main  uniformity  of  opinion.  It  is  commonly 
agreed  that  Jesus'  own  personal  religious  life 
shall  be  made  the  basis  for  estimating  his 
character  and  significance.  Abandoning  meta- 
physical speculations  about  his  origin  and 
nature,  we  are  asked  to  fix  attention  upon  him 
as  a  man  among  men  in  order  that  we  may 
discover  the  content  of  that  religion  which  he 
actually  embodied  in  his  own  life,  and  sought 
by  example  and  precept  to  persuade  others  to 
realize  for  themselves.  He  met  life's  issues  in 
a  perfectly  natural  way,  yet  he  shared  that  full 
inspiration  of  spirit  which  is  available  for  every 
noble,  normal,  spiritually  minded  individual. 
For  him  religion  meant  perfect  fellowship  with 
God  and  loyalty  to  the  highest  ideals  of  per- 
sonal duty  toward  one's  fellows.  In  revealing 
this  noblest  thought  of  the  divine,  Jesus  was 


24  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

revealing  God,  and  so  was  performing  a  saving 
work  for  mankind.  Thus  the  historically  reliable 
and  important  features  of  his  career  are  not 
his  alleged  display  of  miracle-working  ability, 
or  any  other  demonstrations  of  supernatural 
and  messianic  authority,  but  his  impressive 
personal  religious  life. 

As  for  his  teaching,  it  was  chiefly  concerned 
with  the  estabhshment  of  God's  kingdom. 
This,  more  specifically,  meant  the  realization 
on  man's  part  of  true  sonship  to  God,  who,  in 
his  essentially  loving  attitude  toward  humanity, 
was  the  Father.  The  highest  privileges  for 
men  lay  in  becoming  sons  of  God  through  the 
cultivation  in  their  own  lives  of  this  divine 
quality  of  love.  Only  in  the  light  of  this 
thought  could  the  values  of  life  be  estimated 
aright.  The  human  soul  and  its  eternal  welfare 
was  the  thing  of  first  importance.  The  soul's 
safety  was  to  be  insured  by  a  life  of  fidelity  to 
the  divine  will,  the  individual  trusting  at  the 
same  time  in  the  goodness  of  the  heavenly 
Father  who  was  more  willing  to  forgive  and 
love  men  than  human  parents  were  to  show  a 
similar  attitude  toward  their  children.  For  the 
true  son  of  God,  heart  righteousness  was  funda- 
mental.    Casuistry  and  formality  were  to  be 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  ^^ Liberal"  Theology    25 

eliminated;  only  that  which  was  essential  and 
genuinely  sincere  was  worth  while.  When 
formalism  was  set  aside  and  men  turned  in 
sincerity  to  the  Father,  salvation  was  assured. 
Thus  Jesus'  teaching  was  fundamentally  a 
message  of  salvation — not  a  salvation  whose 
realization  must  be  awaited  in  some  far-away 
time,  but  a  present  spiritual  possession. 

During  Jesus'  lifetime  the  significance  of  his 
work  and  teaching  had,  according  to  this  inter- 
pretation, been  but  very  imperfectly  compre- 
hended. Traditional  notions  about  a  Messiah 
who  was  to  deliver  the  Jews  from  their  bondage 
to  foreign  rulers  bulked  so  large  in  men's 
thoughts  that  Jesus'  emphasis  upon  the  more 
distinctly  spiritual  values  of  religion  received 
only  a  feeble  response.  Yet  when  his  death 
shattered  the  disciples'  last  lingering  hopes 
that  he  would  relieve  Israel  from  Roman 
oppression,  they  did  not  dismiss  him  from  their 
thoughts  and  count  him  among  those  mistaken 
messianic  agitators  with  whom  the  Jewish 
people,  since  the  time  of  Judas  of  Gamala, 
had  become  more  or  less  familiar.  Instead 
of  abandoning  hope  Jesus'  disciples  built,  on 
the  foundation  of  their  memory  of  personal 
association  with  him,  the  daring  structure  of 


26  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

new  hope  such  as  no  one  in  Israel  had  ever 
before  ventured  to  surmise.  They  confidently 
proclaimed  that  a  human  being,  even  a  man 
who  had  died,  was  to  figure  as  the  super- 
natural IMessiah  coming  in  glory  on  the 
clouds.  This  new  messianism  was  not  however 
the  heart  of  the  new  faith;  it  was  only  the 
outward  expression  of  an  inward  life-stimulus 
which  went  back  to  Jesus  as  its  source.  The 
new  hope  served  as  a  vehicle  to  bear  along  for  a 
few  generations  this  new  spiritual  energ}'  which 
had  emanated  from  Jesus,  but  ultimately  the 
vehicle  was  to  be  discarded.  History  soon 
proved  that  these  hopes  were  false.  Yet  the 
Jesus-life  continued  to  make  a  successful  appeal 
to  men,  prompting  new  interpretations  of  his 
person  and  work.  Thus  began  that  struggle 
which  has  sometimes  caused  great  distress  in 
religious  thinking — the  struggle  to  readjust 
christological  speculations.  But  Jesus'  place 
in  the  founding  and  perpetuating  of  Christianity 
is  one  of  life  rather  than  of  theory,  and  "liberal" 
interpreters  are  disposed  to  confine  thought  of 
him  to  the  former  realm. 

We  need  not,  it  is  said,  go  beyond  this  simple 
picture  of  Jesus'  life  and  teaching,  the  power 
of  which  has  been  practically  demonstrated 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "Liberal"  Theology    27 

in  the  founding  of  Christianity,  to  find  those 
features  which  give  his  personaKty  its  para- 
mount significance  for  religion  today.  As 
stated  by  some  of  the  best-known  representa- 
tives of  the  liberal  view: 

The  nearer  we  draw  to  Jesus  in  the  tradition  the 
more  does  all  dogmatic  theology  recede.  We  behold 
a  man  who,  more  than  any  other,  by  his  clear  word 
makes  us  understand  ourselves,  the  world,  and  God, 
and  who  goes  with  us  amid  the  needs  and  struggles  of 
our  time  as  the  truest  friend  and  guide  on  whom  we 
may  rely  for  comfort.' 

In  spite  of  our  remoteness  in  time  and  the  frequently 
painful  uncertainty  of  the  tradition,  we  who  are  thus 
distantly  connected  with  the  great  story  of  Jesus 
handed  down  through  the  centuries  can  still  find  him, 
in  his  trust  in  God  and  his  nearness  to  God,  in  his 
relentless  moral  earnestness,  in  his  conquest  over  pain, 
in  his  certainty  of  the  forgiveness  of  sins,  and  in  his 
eternal  hope,  to  be  the  guide  of  our  souls  to  God.^ 

This  unique  historical  personality,  apart  from  all 
outer  forces,  alone  through  his  inner  greatness  created 
the  world-encompassing  spiritual  movement  of  Chris- 
tianity  He  is  the  founder  of  our  inner  Christian 

life  as  well His  powerful  personality  constrains 

us  to  share  both  his  faith  in  God's  holy  and  fatherly 

'  Wernle,  Sources  of  Our  Knowledge  of  the  Life  of  Jesus  (Lon- 
don, 1907,  p.  163;  Die  Quellen  des  Lehens  Jesu,  Tubingen,  1905). 

'  Bousset,  Jesus  (3.  Aufl.,  Tubingen,  1907,  pp.  99  f.;  cf.  Eng- 
lish tr.,  Jesus,  London  and  New  York,  1906,  p.  211). 


28  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

love  and  his  own  life  of  holy  love.  Thus  he  makes  us 
truly  joyous  and  happy,  giving  to  our  life  true  AA'orth 
and  abiding  meaning.' 

Such  in  brief  is  the  historical  Jesus  of 
"liberal"  theology.  Needless  to  say,  this 
reconstruction  of  Jesus'  career,  and  this  inter- 
pretation of  his  significance,  have  met  with 
severe  opposition  from  different  quarters.  Of 
necessity  adherents  of  the  older  Christology  must 
declare  unceasing  war  upon  so  free  a  treatment 
of  the  traditions,  and  especially  upon  so  thor- 
oughgoing a  rejection  of  supernaturalism.  This 
complete  elimination  of  supernaturalism  is  also 
repellant  to  the  semi-liberal  school  of  theo- 
logians who  have  come  to  be  known  as  "modern 
positivists."^  All  these  opponents  urge  that 
Jesus'  person  and  worth  have  been  seriously 
underestimated.  On  the  other  hand,  a  radical 
type  of  interpretation  insists  that  too  high  a 
value  has  been  placed  upon  him.  We  are  told 
that  he  has  no  such  significance  for  modern 
religion  as  even  the  "liberals"  imagine.  His 
ideal    individuality,    his    high   ethico-religious 

'  A.  Meyer,  Was  uns  Jesus  hetile  ist  (Tubingen,  1907,  pp.  41  f.). 

'  A  convenient  summary  of  their  position  is  given  by  Bousset 
in  the  Thcologische  Rundschau,  IX  (1906),  287-302,  327-40, 
371-81,  413-24;  and  by  G.  B.  Smith  in  the  American  Journal 
of  Theology,  XIII  (1909),  92-99. 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "Liberal"  Theology    29 

thought,  and  the  hke,  are  said  to  be  only 
modern  ideas  read  back  into  his  historic  figure. 
This  process  is  held  not  to  be  different  in  prin- 
ciple from  that  employed  by  the  first-century 
interpreters  in  constructing  a  Christology  which 
should  embody  the  most  valuable  ideas  of  their 
age.  Furthermore  this  modern  "Jesusism"  is 
declared  to  be  inadequate  to  meet  the  demands 
of  modern  life.  Ethically  it  does  not  supply 
sufficient  values,  socially  it  is  not  closely  enough 
in  touch  with  present-day  conditions,  intel- 
lectually it  ignores  metaphysical  questions 
and  philosophical  problems  in  general  with 
too  easy  a  conscience. 

And  then  come  the  extremists  who  would 
wipe  the  historical  Jesus  entirely  off  the  slate. 
They  subscribe  to  the  objections  raised  above, 
combining  and  supplementing  them  in  a  way 
to  prove,  they  think,  that  Jesus  never  lived. 
The  conservative  theologians  also  unite  with 
these  extreme  radicals  in  contending  that  the 
historical  Jesus  whom  modern  critical  study 
posits  never  could  have  supplied  to  primitive 
Christianity  its  initial  incentive.  His  person- 
ality is  too  shadowy,  too  ordinary,  to  have 
exerted  so  unique  an  influence — his  figure  must 
be  greatly  enlarged.     But  in  what  direction 


3©  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

shall  the  enlargement  be  made  ?  At  this  point 
conservatives  and  radicals  come  to  a  sharp 
parting  of  the  ways.  The  former  maintain 
that  a  genuinely  historical  Jesus  must  be  identi- 
fied Avith  the  real  supernatural  Christ,  the 
latter  hold  that  an  alleged  historical  Jesus  must 
give  place  to  the  fanciful  image  of  a  mythical 
Christ.  Wlien  the  conservatives  rejoice  over 
the  fate  which  the  Jesus  of  liberal  theology  has 
met  at  the  hands  of  these  modern  radicals,  they 
would  seem  to  be  sounding  the  death  knell  of 
their  own  christological  views.  For  if  the 
earthly  Jesus  must  go,  how  much  more  com- 
pletely must  any  supposed  reality  of  a  super- 
natural Christ  be  abandoned!  Indeed  he  is 
denied  existence  by  the  very  presuppositions 
of  the  radicals'  thought,  while  the  earthly 
Jesus  is,  at  least  ostensibly,  argued  out  of 
existence. 

Hence  an  attempt  from  the  conservative 
point  of  view  to  refute  the  particular  t>'pe  of 
denial  at  present  urged  against  Jesus'  his- 
toricity could  in  the  nature  of  the  case  amount 
to  but  little  more  than  the  assertion  of  one  set 
of  presuppositions  as  over  against  another  set. 
There  is  no  common  ground  on  which  arguments 
pro  and  contra  may  rest.     One  view  places 


The  Historical  Jesus  of  "Liberal"  Theology    31 

primary  stress  on  supernaturalism,  the  other 
dismisses  supernaturahsm  before  argumenta- 
tion begins.  Therefore,  for  practical  purposes, 
if  on  no  other  grounds,  it  is  desirable  to  meet 
the  opposition  at  its  own  point  of  attack.  And 
since  denial  of  Jesus'  existence  proceeds  directly 
against  the  so-called  liberal  interpretation,  the 
most  immediate  and  practical  question  is. 
Can  his  existence  be  successfully  defended  from 
the  "liberal"  theology's  own  position?  This 
is  the  present  problem. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  MYTHICAL  CHRIST  OF  RADICAL 
CRITICISM 

The  modern  denial  of  Jesus'  historicity  is  not 
without  its  antecedents.  As  early  as  the  end 
of  the  eighteenth  century  certain  French 
writers  classed  Christianity  among  the  mythical 
religions  of  antiquity,  and  Jesus'  person  took 
on  a  correspondingly  shadowy  form.'  Both 
Judaism  and  Christianity  were  explained  as 
mainly  a  composite  of  primitive  oriental  ideas, 
derived  more  particularly  from  Persia  and 
ultimately  going  back  to  astral  myths. 

Contemporaneously  in  Germany  Bahrdt^  and 
Venturini^  introduced  a  skeptical  movement  in 
reaction  against  the  prevailing  supernaturalism 
of  current  interpretation.    They  had  no  inten- 

'  E.g.,  Volney,  Les  riiines  (Paris,  1791);  Dupuis,  Origine  de 
tous  les  cuUes  (Paris,  1794;  German  tr.,  Ursprung  der  Golles- 
verehrung,  Leipzig,  1910).  Cf.  Geneval,  Jesus  devant  Vhistoire 
n' a  jamais  vecu  (Geneva,  1874). 

^  Brief c  iihcr  die  Bibcl  im  Volkslon.  Eine  Wochenschrijl  von 
eiiiem  Prcdigcr  aufdcm  Landc  (Halle,  1 782) ;  Ausfiihrung  dcs  Plans 
und  Zwccks  Jesu.  In  Briefen  an  Wahrhcil  suchcnde  Lcscr  (11  vols., 
Berlin,  1784-92);  Die  sdmtlicltcn  Rcdcn  Jesu  a  us  den  Evangelisten 
ausgezogen  (Berlin,  1786). 

3  Natiirlichc  Geschichle  des  grossen  Prophelen  von  Nazareth  (4 
vols.,  Bethlehem  [Copenhagen],  1800-2,  1806'). 

32 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      33 

tion  of  denying  Jesus'  existence,  yet  their 
reconstruction  of  his  life  so  far  forsook  the 
gospel  representation  as  to  leave  his  real  his- 
torical form  largely  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
They  found  the  secret  of  his  career  in  his  connec- 
tion with  the  Essenes.  This  order  was  believed 
to  have  drawn  upon  Babylonia,  Egypt,  India, 
and  Greece  for  secret  wisdom.  Jesus  was  not 
only  a  member  of  this  brotherhood,  he  was  also 
its  protege.  In  youth  he  had  been  trained  in 
its  secrets,  and  during  his  public  ministry  he 
was  closely  in  touch  with  the  leading  brethren. 
Thus  the  Jesus  of  the  gospels  is  virtually  a 
myth,  while  the  true  Jesus  was  the  exponent  of 
this  ancient  and  secret  wisdom.  This  general 
interpretation  has  been  reproduced  in  England 
by  Hennell,'  in  France  by  Salvator,^  and  it  has 
been  followed  in  Germany  by  von  Langsdorf,^ 

'  A  n  Inquiry  concerning  the  Origin  of  Christiajiity  (London, 
1838).  Cf.  Fiebig,  "Die  Worte  Jesu,"  Die  Christliche  Welt,  1911, 
26-29,  50-53. 

'  Jesus-Christ  et  sa  doctrine  (2  vols.,  Paris.  1838).  Also  de 
Regla  (Desjardin).  Jesus  de  Nazareth  au  point  de  vue  historique, 
scientifique  et  social  (Paris,  1891;  German  tr.,  Jesus  von  Nazareth, 
Leipzig,  1894);  Notowitsch,  La  vie  inconnue  de  Jesus-Christ 
(Paris,  18943;  German  tr..  Die  Liicke  im  Lehen  Jesu,  Stuttgart, 
1894;  English  tr..  The  Unknown  Life  of  Christ,  Chicago  [no  date]); 
Bosc,  La  vie  esoterique  de  Jesus  de  Nazareth  et  les  origines  orientates 
du  Christianisme  (Paris,  1902). 

3  Wohlgeprilfte  Darslellung  des  Lebens  Jesu  (Mannheim,  183 1). 


34  The  Ilisloricily  of  Jesus 

Gfrorer,^  von  der  Aim  (Ghillany)/  and  Noack,^ 
who  in  turn  contribute  some  items  to  the  views 
of  the  modern  extremists. 

Strauss's  application  of  the  mythical  theory 
to  the  gospel  narratives  is  a  much  more  master- 
ful piece  of  work  and  it  has,  accordingly, 
exerted  a  much  greater  influence.  Strauss 
never  seems  to  have  doubted  Jesus'  actual 
existence,  nor  did  he  attempt,  after  the  manner 

'  Krilische  Geschichle  des  Urckristenlums  (2  vols.,  Stuttgart, 
1831-38). 

'  Theologische  Brief e  an  die  Gebildeten  der  deutschen  Nation 
(3  vols.,  Leipzig,  1863);  cf.  also  Die  Urteile  heidnischcr  und  christ- 
licher  Schrijtslcller  der  vier  erslen  christlichcn  J ahrhunderte  iiher 
Jesus  (ibid.,  1864). 

i  Aus  der  Jordanwiege  nach  Golgatha:  vier  Biicher  iiher  das 
Evangelium  und  die  Evangelien  (Mannheim,  1870-71);  a  second 
edition  with  changed  title,  Die  Geschichle  Jesu  auf  Grund  freier 
gcschichtlicher  Untcrsuchungen  iiher  das  Evangelium  und  die  Evange- 
lien (1876).  Of  a  similarly  fictitious  character  are  the  following 
anonymous  publications:  Wichlige  Enthiillungen  iiher  die  ivirk- 
liche  Todesarl  Jesu.  Nach  einem  alien,  zu  Alexandria  gejundenen 
Manuskriple  von  einem  Zeitgenossen  Jesu  aus  dem  heiligen  Orden 
der  Essder  (Leipzig,  18495);  Hislorische  Enthiillungen  iiher  die 
wirklichen  Ereignisse  der  Gehurl  und  Jugend  Jesu.  Als  Fort- 
selzung  der  zu  Alexandria  aufgefundenen  alien  Urkunden  aus  dem 
Essaerorden  (Leipzig,  1849');  l^'^*"  "''^''  Jesus?  Aulhentische 
Milteilungen  eines  Zeitgenossen  Jesu  iiher  Gehurl,  Jugend,  Leben 
und  Todesarl,  sowie  iiher  die  Mutter  des  Nazareners.  Nach  einem 
alien,  zu  Alexandrien  aufgefundenen  Manuskriple.  Aus  einer 
laleinischen  Abschrift  des  Originals  iiberselzl  (Oranienburg  bei 
Berlin,  1906);  The  Crucifixion,  by  an  Eye-Witness  (Chicago, 
1907). 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      35 

of  Bahrdt  and  Venturini,  a  fanciful  rehabilita- 
tion of  Jesus'  figure.  Yet  his  work  prepared 
the  way  for  that  champion  of  radicalism,  Bruno 
Bauer,  who  has  given  classic  expression  to  the 
arguments  against  Jesus'  historicity. 

In  the  controversy  which  followed  the  appear- 
ance of  Strauss's  Life  of  Jesus,  Bauer  found 
himself  compelled  to  oppose  the  contemporary 
apologists.  He,  like  Strauss,  belonged  to  the 
Hegelian  school,  from  which  he  derived  his 
notion  of  the  supremacy  of  the  idea.  Between 
the  idea  and  the  reality  there  is  a  perpetual 
antithesis.  The  idea  is,  as  it  were,  a  fleeing 
goal  which  men  sight  now  and  then  but  never 
ultimately  apprehend.  Indeed  the  idea  never 
can  be  perfectly  realized  in  a  historic  mani- 
festation— that  would  mean  its  death.  So 
Bauer  revolted  against  the  current  theological 
method  of  forcing  Jesus'  personality  into  a 
hard-and-fast  system  of  theology,  with  the 
accompanying  claim  of  finality.  True  religion, 
for  Bauer,  is  attained  by  the  self-conscious  ego 
setting  itself  up  in  antithesis  to,  and  struggling 
to  triumph  over,  the  world.  This  victory  is 
not  to  be  won  through  violence,  through  man's 
fighting  against  Nature,  as  the  doctrine  of 
miracle  implies;   it  is  brought  about  by  man's 


36  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

realization  of  his  own  personality.  "Spirit 
does  not  bluster,  rave,  storm,  and  rage  against 
Nature  as  is  implied  in  miracle — this  would  be 
a  denial  of  its  inner  law,  but  it  works  its  own 
way  through  the  antithesis."  A  second  anti- 
thesis of  which  men  are  conscious  is  the  separa- 
tion between  God  and  man,  and  this  too  is  to 
be  overcome  not  by  external  means,  but 
through  an  inward  triumph  of  spirit.  One  who 
in  his  inner  consciousness  has  brought  about  the 
synthesis  of  this  double  antithesis  has  attained 
genuine  religion. 

Under  these  circumstances  it  is  scarcely  sur- 
prising that  Bauer  should  protest  against  what 
must  have  seemed  to  him  the  false  and  grossly 
externalizing  features  in  the  theological  think- 
ing of  his  day.  At  the  outset  he  apparently 
had  no  thought  of  denying  the  existence  of  a 
historical  Jesus.  He  aimed  rather  to  exhibit 
what  seemed  to  him  the  falsehood  and  intellect- 
ual dishonesty  of  the  apologetic  methods  used 
by  the  critics  of  Strauss.  So  he  began  a 
critical  examination  of  the  gospels,  the  authori- 
ties to  which  the  theologians  appealed  in 
support  of  their  position.  Bauer  first  demon- 
strated, as  he  thought,  that  the  picture  of  Jesus 
given  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  was  not  historical 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      37 

but  was  a  creation  of  primitive  theological 
reflection.^  Attention  was  next  directed  to  the 
Synoptists,  where  the  recent  conclusions  of 
Weisse  and  Wilke  as  to  the  priority  of  Mark 
were  adopted.  But  if  Mark  was  the  main 
source  for  the  first  and  third  evangelists,  then 
the  united  testimony  of  all  three  gospels  is  in 
reality  the  testimony  of  one  witness  only;  and 
this  upon  further  examination  also  proved 
untrustworthy.  The  Gospel  of  Mark  was 
thought  to  be  merely  a  literary  fiction,  the 
product  of  an  original  evangelist's  theological 
reflections.  Consequently  all  three  Synoptists 
were  to  be  set  aside  as  entirely  unhistorical.^ 
A  similar  result  attended  Bauer's  study  of  the 
Pauline  literature.^  The  so-called  Pauline 
epistles  were  all  found  to  be  pseudonymous 
products  of  the  second  century  a.d.  Accord- 
ingly all  evidence  for  Jesus'  existence  vanished. 
He  was  not  Christianity's  founder;  he  was 
merely  its  fictitious  product. 

'  Kritik  der  evangclischoi  Geschichtc  des  Johannes  (Bremen, 
1840). 

^  Krilik  der  evangelischen  Geschichtc  der  Synoptiker  (3  vols., 
Leipzig,  1841-42);  2d  ed.,  Kritik  der  Evangelien  und  Geschichie 
ihrcs  Ursprimgs  (2  vols.,  Berlin,  1850-51). 

3  Kritik  der  paulinischen  Brief e.  In  drei  Abteilungen  (Berlin, 
1850-52). 


38  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

How  then  did  the  new  movement  originate  ? 
In  answering  this  question  Bauer  allowed  his 
fancy  free  play/  The  absence  of  reference  to 
the  new  religion  in  the  non-Christian  writings 
of  the  first  century  was  cited  as  e\ddence  of  its 
late  origin.  It  was  a  gradual  outcome  of  con- 
ditions prevailing  in  the  Graeco-Roman  world 
of  the  first  and  second  centuries  a.d.  In 
general  the  Stoics,  and  particularly  Seneca, 
had  attained  a  consciousness  of  the  antithesis 
between  man  and  the  world;  and  conditions 
under  Nero  and  Domitian,  especially  wdth  the 
introduction  of  neo-Platonic  ideas,  showed  a 
marked  development  in  the  spiritual  history  of 
humanity.  Moreover  in  this  period  Judaism 
was  being  denationalized,  as  in  the  case  of  Philo 
and  Josephus,  and  thus  its  spiritual  solution  for 
the  antithesis  between  God  and  man  was  made 
available  for  the  gentile  world.  In  this  way  a 
new  type  of  thought  arose  which  received  the 
name  Christianity — a  compound  of  Stoicism, 
neo-Platonism  and  Judaism.  Rome  and  .Alex- 
andria were  its  two  centers,  and  it  first  attracted 
public  notice  in  the  time  of  Trajan. 

Bauer's   results   finally   passed   almost    un- 

'  Chrislus  and  die  Cacsaren.  Dcr  Urspriiiig  dcs  Chrislcntums 
ans  dem  romischcn  Griechcnlum  (Berlin,  1877,  1879'). 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      39 

noticed,  yet  the  fundamental  lines  of  his  work 
are  not  so  very  different  from  those  followed 
by  the  modern  radicals.  Summarized,  the 
main  items  of  his  criticism  are:  (i)  emphasis 
upon  definite  speculative  presuppositions,  (2) 
an  unqualified  treatment  of  the  New  Testament 
books  as  tendency  writings,  (3)  stress  upon  the 
lack  of  non-Christian  evidence  for  the  existence 
of  Christianity  in  the  first  century,  and  (4)  a 
belief  that  all  factors  necessary  to  account  for 
the  origin  of  Christianity  without  reference  to 
a  historical  Jesus  can  be  found  in  the  life  of  the 
ancient  world. 

Within  the  last  decade  doubts  about  Jesus' 
existence  have  been  advanced  in  several  quar- 
ters,' but  nowhere  so  insistently  as  in  Germany. 
There  the  skeptical  movement  has  become  a 
regular  propaganda.^    The  present  status  of 

'  E.g.,  in  America  by  W.  B.  Smith;  in  England  by  J.  M. 
Robertson,  Mead,  Whittaker;  in  Holland  by  Bolland;  in  France 
by  Virolleaud  {La  legende  du  Christ,  Paris,  1908);  in  Italy  by 
Bossi  {Gcsii  Christo  non  e  mai  esistilo,  Milan,  1904);  in  Poland  by 
Niemojewski;  in  Germany  by  Kalthoff,  Jensen.  Drews,  Lublinski, 
and  several  others. 

^  Its  foremost  champion  is  Arthur  Drews,  professor  of  philoso- 
phy in  Karlsruhe  Technical  High  School.  Since  the  appearance 
of  his  Christusmylhc  in  1909  the  subject  has  been  kept  before  the 
public  by  means  of  debates  held  in  various  places,  particularly  at 
some  important  university  centers  such  as  Jena,  Marburg, 
Giessen,  Leipzig,  Berlin.     In  these  debates  Jesus'  historicity  has 


40  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

this  contention  for  a  purely  mythical  Jesus  will 
perhaps  best  be  understood  by  observing  some 
of  its  typical  forms. 

The  late  Albert  Kalthoff,  a  pastor  in  Bremen 
and  at  one  time  president  of  the  "Monisten- 
bund,"  revived  the  \iews  of  Bauer  with  slight 
modifications.  The  distinctive  feature  of 
Kalthoff 's  view  is  his  emphasis  upon  the  social 
idea.'  He  reacts  strongly  against  the  indi- 
vidualism of  modern  Christianity,  a  feature  in 

been  defended  by  various  New  Testament  scholars  of  the  first 
rank.  A  debate  which  attracted  special  attention  was  held  at 
Berlin  under  the  direction  of  the  "  Monistenbund "  on  the  even- 
ings of  January  31  and  February  i,  1910.  Drews  and  von  Soden 
led  opposite  sides  of  the  discussion,  of  which  the  complete  steno- 
graphic report  is  published  as  Berliner  Reli gionsges prdch:  Hal 
Jesus  gcJeht?  (Berlin  and  Leipzig,  1910).  The  literature  called 
forth  by  the  general  controversy  is  already  large  and  is  still 
increasing. 

'  Das  Chrislits-Problcm:  GruudHuien  zii  einer  Sozialthcologie 
(Leipzig,  1902,  1903');  Die  Entslehiing  des  Chrislentums:  Neue 
Beilrdgc  zum  Christus problem  (Leipzig,  1904).  Cf.  the  similar 
interest  of  Nieuwenhuis,  Das  Leben  Jesii:  Eiiie  historisch-kri- 
tische  Abhandlung  zur  Aujkldrimg  des  arbeite>iden  Volkes  (Biele- 
feld, 1893),  who  thinks  Jesus'  existence  may  be  questioned. 
Kalthoff's  position  was  opposed,  e.g.,  by  Thikotter,  Kalthoffs 
Schrijt  "Das  Christiis problem^'  beleuehtet  and  Dr.  Kalthojfs  Replik 
bcleuchlel  (Bremen,  1903;  cf.  Kalthoff,  D.  Thikotter  und  das 
Christiisproblem:  Einc  RepHk,  Bremen,  1903);  Tschirn,  Hat 
Christus  iiberhaupt  geJebt?  (Bamberg,  1903);  Boussct,Tra5  wissen 
u'ir  von  Jesus?  Vorlrdge  im  Protestantenverein  zu  Bremen  (Halle, 
1904;  cf.  Kalthoff,  Tl'as  zcissen  wir  von  Jesus?  Einc  Abrechnung 
mit  Professor  Boussel  in  Gottingen,  Berlin,  1904);  Kapp,  Das 
Christus-  und  Christentums problem  bei  KalthoJJ  (Strassburg, 
1905);    Titius,  Der  Bremer  Radikalismus  (Tiibingen,  1908). 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      41 

his  opinion  not  to  be  found  in  the  primitive 
form  of  this  faith.  Originally  Christianity  was 
purely  a  socio-religious  or  socio-ethical  move- 
ment of  the  masses,  and  so  free  from  individual- 
ism that  the  notion  of  a  personal  founder  was 
itself  wanting.  An  individual  by  the  name  of 
Jesus  may  have  lived  about  the  opening  of  our 
era,  but  he  had  no  unique  significance  for  the 
rise  of  the  new  religion.  Not  Judea  but  Rome 
was  the  seat  of  its  origin;  Jewish  messianism, 
Stoic  philosophy,  and  the  communistic  clubs  of 
the  time  supplied  its  source  elements;  its 
literature  was  a  poetic  creation  projecting  into 
the  past  the  more  immediate  experiences  of  the 
present,  as  when  the  picture  of  a  suffering, 
dying,  and  rising  Christ  typified  the  com- 
munity's own  life  of  persecution  and  martyr- 
dom. The  gospel  Jesus  was  created  for  practical 
purposes,  thus  giving  a  concrete  and  so  a  more 
permanent  form  to  the  principles  and  ideals  of 
the  new  faith.' 

'  Socialists  of  Losinsky's  type  (cf.  his  Waren  die  Urchrislen 
wirklich  Sozialistcn?  Berlin,  1907)  deny  that  Christianity  has  any 
significance  for  socialism;  others  hold  more  nearlj^  to  the  views 
of  Kalthoff ,  though  their  method  of  handling  the  alleged  historical 
Jesus  is  not  always  quite  so  radical.  For  example,  Kautsky,  Der 
Ursprimg  des  Christentums  (Stuttgart,  1908),  also  "Jesus  der 
Rebell"  in  Die  neue  Zeil,  XXVIII  (19 10,  13-17,  44-52),  treats 
the  Christian  literature  with  so  free  a  hand  as  to  make  Jesus  a 


42  The  Ilisloricity  of  Jesus 

Other  investigators  draw  more  largely  upon 
the  religions  of  the  ancient  Orient  for  data  to 
explain  the  rise  of  Christianity.  As  compared 
with  the  reconstructions  of  Bauer  and  Kalthoff , 
this  method  usually  results  in  an  earlier  date 
and  a  different  provenance  for  the  origin  of  the 
new  faith.  While  the  representatives  of  the 
religionsgeschichtliche  school  are  usually  content 
with  maintaining  that  the  gospel  accounts  of 
Jesus  are  more  or  less  heightened  by  the 
introduction  of  foreign  elements/  many  of  its 

political  and  social  revolutionist,  a  typical  "Marxist."  For  a 
reply  to  Kautsky  see  Windisch,  Der  messianische  Krieg  und  das 
Urchrislenkim  (Tubingen,  1909)  and  "Jesus  ein  Rebell?"  in 
Evangel isch-Sozial,  19 10,  33-44.  IMaurenbrechcr,  Von  Nazareth 
nach  Golgalha:  Eine  Unlcrsiichimg  iiber  die  weUgeschichUichen 
Zusammcnhdnge  des  Urchristcntums  (Schoneberg-Berlin,  1909)  and 
Von  Jerusalem  nach  Rom:  Weilere  Untcrsuchungen  iiber  die  welt- 
geschichtlichcn  Zusammenhdnge  des  Urchristentiims  {ibid.,  1910) 
takes  the  sources  more  seriously  than  Kautsky  does,  yet  he  assigns 
no  very  serious  role  to  the  historical  Jesus  as  the  founder  of 
Christianity.  He  actually  existed,  for  his  life  and  death  were  the 
indispensable  incentive  for  the  new  religion,  but  the  real  secret  of 
its  origin  is  the  activity  of  the  Son  of  Man  myth  which  fLxed 
itself  upon  the  person  of  Jesus  after  his  death,  and  in  which  the 
hopes  of  the  common  people  found  expression.  Jesus  had  not 
put  himself  forward  as  Messiah.  He  had  spoken  of  the  Son  of 
Man,  whose  coming  he  believed  to  be  near  at  hand,  only  in  the 
third  person.  Jesus  was  moved  mainly  by  the  proletarian 
instinct,  which  also  dominated  the  thinking  of  the  disciples.  The 
giving  of  themselves  to  this  ideal  after  Jesus'  death  was  the  birth- 
day of  Christianity. 

'  Cf.  Clemen,  Religionsgeschichtliche  Erkldrung  des  Keiien 
Testaments  (Giessen,  1909)  for  a  convenient  summary  of  the 
literature. 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      43 

conclusions  can  readily  be  made  to  serve  the 
interests  of  those  who  argue  against  Jesus' 
historicity.  The  entire  New  Testament  repre- 
sentation of  the  life  and  thought  of  primitive 
Christianity  becomes  for  these  interpreters  a 
congeries  of  ideas  and  practices  borrowed  from 
the  ancient  religions.  This  general  principle 
for  solving  the  problem  is  applied  in  several 
different  ways. 

J.  M.  Robertson,  who  writes  in  the  interests 
of  "naturalism"  as  against  "credulity  and 
organized  ecclesiasticism,"  thinks  to  prove  that 
the  gospels'  account  of  both  the  life  and  the 
teaching  of  Jesus  is  a  composite  of  pagan 
myths. ^  Two  lines  of  evidence  for  this  con- 
clusion are,  (i)  the  character  of  the  "Jesus" 
whom  Paul  knows,  who  is  not  a  Jesus  of  action 
and  teaching  but  a  "speechless  sacrifice";  and 
(2)  the  certainty  with  which  everything  in  the 
gospels  can  be  paralleled  in  pagan  mythology. 
Constructively,  the  germ  of  Christianity  may 
supposably  be  a  primitive  Semitic  belief  in  a 
Palestinian  Savior-Sun-God,  Joshua  the  son  of 
the  mythical  Miriam,  that  is,  Jesus  the  son  of 

^Christianity  and  Mythology  (London,  1900);  German  tr.  of 
third  part,  Die  EvangeUemnylhen  (Jena,  1910);  A  Short  History  of 
Christianity  (London,  1902);  Pagan  Christs;  Studies  in  Compara- 
tive Hierology  (London,  1903). 


44  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Mary.  Thus  Christianity  is  ultimately  a 
primitive  cult.  Its  "Jesus"  may  be  a  recollec- 
tion of  some  vague  figure  such  as  Jesus  ben 
Pandera  of  the  Talmud,  put  to  death  for 
probably  anti- Judaic  teachings,  and  of  whom 
the  epistles  of  Paul  preserve  only  the  tradition 
of  his  crucifixion.  But  the  more  important  part 
is  played  by  the  Joshua- Jesus  god  of  the  cult.' 
Jensen  determines  more  specifically  than 
Robertson  does  the  source  from  which  the 
myth-making  fancy  of  the  gospel  writers  is 
thought  to  have  taken  its  start.  He  holds  that 
the  careers  of  both  Jesus  and  Paul,  as  recorded 
in  the  New  Testament,  are  reproductions  in 
variant  form  of  the  Babylonian  legend  of 
Gilgamesh.  The  proof  for  this  position  is  found 
in  a  series  of  similarities  in  content  and  form 
which  appear  on  comparing  the  Gilgamesh  epic 
with  the  gospels  and  the  Pauline  epistles."" 
While  Jensen,  in  his  reply  to  Jiilicher,  protests 

'  This  notion  of  a  pre-Christian  Jesus  has  been  argued  some- 
what hesitatingly  by  Mead,  and  with  strong  conviction  by  W.  B. 
Smith.  It  has  been  adopted  also  by  BoUand,  Drews,  Niemo- 
jewski,  and  others. 

'  Das  Gilgamesch-Epos  in  der  WeUUteratur  (Strassburg,  1906; 
see  especially  pp.  811-1030);  Moses,  Jesus,  Paulas:  Drci  Varian- 
len  des  babylonischcn  GoUmeuschen  Gilgamesch  (Frankfurt,  1909); 
Hal  der  Jesus  der  Evangel ien  wirklich  gclebl?  Bine  Antworl  an 
Prof.  Dr.  Jiilicher  (Frankfurt,  1910;  cf.  Jiilicher,  Hat  Jesus 
geleU?  Vorlrag  gehalten  zti  Marburg  am  i.  Mdrz  1910,  Marburg, 
1910.) 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      45 

against  being  classed  among  those  who  deny- 
absolutely  the  existence  of  a  historical  Jesus, 
his  position  is,  in  effect,  the  same  as  theirs.  He 
says:  "Of  the  career  of  the  alleged  founder  of 
Christianity  we  know  nothing,  or  at  least  as 
good  as  nothing,"  and  "we  serve  in  our  cathe- 
drals and  houses  of  prayer,  in  our  churches  and 
schools,  in  palace  and  hut,  a  Babylonian  god, 
Babylonian  gods."  All  this  is  due  to  the 
remarkable  vitality  and  perpetuative  momen- 
tum of  the  Gilgamesh-story. 

In  Niemojewski's  bulky  volume  astral 
mythology  is  made  the  main  source  of  Chris- 
tian origins.^  This  emphasis  upon  the  astral 
origin  of  religious  notions  is  a  revival  of  Dupuis' 
views,  recast  under  the  influence  of  the  modern 
school  of  Winckler.^  Niemojewski  finds  that 
the  New  Testament  writings  are  not  altogether 
uniform  in  their  representation  of  Jesus  as  a 

'  Gott  Jesus  im  Lichte  fremder  tind  eigener  Forschungen  sanit 
Darstellung  der  evangelischeii  AslralstoJJe,  Astralscenen  und  Astral- 
systeme  (Munich,  1910;  from  the  Polish  BogJezus,  WarsaWjigog). 
Cf.  also  Koch,  Die  Sage  von  Jesus  dem  Sonnengott  (Berlin,  191 1). 

^  In  the  realm  of  gospel  study  a  novel  product  of  the  Winckler 
school  may  be  seen  in  W.  Erbt's  Das  M arcusevangelium:  Eine 
U nlersuchung  iiher  die  Form  der  Petruserinncrungen  mid  die 
GeschicMe  der  Urgemcinde  (Leipzig,  191 1).  Mark's  story  of  Jesus' 
life  is  thought  to  be  constructed  on  a  solar  scheme  starting  with 
December  22,  when  the  sun  turns  again  on  its  upward  course  in 
the  heavens.  Thus  Jesus  is  depicted  in  the  gospel  as  the  renewer. 
The  gospel  falls  into  twenty-eight  sections,  each  representing  one 


46  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

mythical  personage,  except  in  their  consistent 
treatment  of  him  as  a  deity.  In  the  epistles 
he  is  nothing  other  than  a  variant  of  Osiris, 
Tammuz,  Attis,  Adonis.  For  Matthew  he  is 
the  Sun-god.  For  Luke  the  supreme  deity  is 
the  sun  and  his  son  is  the  moon.  Again  the 
Holy  Spirit  is  the  sun.  Various  gospel  names 
and  characters,  as  Arimathea,  Cyrene,  Galilee, 
Judea,  have  an  astral  significance;  while  Herod 
the  Great,  Herod  Antipas,  Herodias,  Salome, 
are  the  counterparts  respectively  of  the  con- 
stellations Hydrus,  Scorpio,  Cassiopeia,  Androm- 
eda. The  cross  of  Jesus  is  the  Milky  Way, 
the  tree  of  the  world. 

Another  school  of  writers  finds  the  key  to 
Christian  origins  in  the  activity  of  a  primitive 
doctrine  of  "gnosis,"  or  in  some  type  of  esoteric 
teaching  fostered  by  secret  cults,  mysteries, 
and  similar  phenomena  in  the  life  of  the  ancient 
world.     Mead'  suggests  that  such  movements 

of  the  twelve  months  of  the  year — reckoning  Jesus'  ministry  as 
two  years  and  four  months  long — and  each  of  these  sections  pic- 
tures Jesus  in  terms  of  ideas  which  the  Babylonians  connected 
with  the  respective  months.  Peter,  it  is  held,  was  responsible  for 
this  arrangement  of  the  calendar  year.  It  was  forsaken  when 
James  became  head  of  the  church,  under  whose  leadership  Chris- 
tianity reverted  to  a  more  distinctly  Jewish  type  of  thought. 

^  Did  Jesus  Live  100  B.C.?  (London  and  Benares,  1903);  cf. 
the  same  author's  Fragments  of  a  Faith  Forgotten  (London,  1900; 
German  tr.,  Fragmenten eines  verschollenen  Glauhens,  Berlin,  1902). 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      47 

had  already  gained  a  footing  within  Judaism, 
prior  to  the  Christian  era.  Indeed  he  questions 
the  presence  of  any  widespread  orthodoxy  in 
Judaism  before  the  days  of  the  Mishnaic  rabbis. 
The  seventy  esoteric  books  of  II  Esd.  14:46  £f., 
which  contain  "the  spring  of  understanding, 
the  fountain  of  wisdom,  and  the  stream  of 
knowledge,"  and  which  are  to  be  delivered  only 
to  "the  wise  among  the  people,"  are  thought  to 
presuppose  for  an  earlier  date  the  existence  of 
esotericists  representing  tendencies  which  may 
be  traced  in  Essenism,  Therapeutism,  Philon- 
ism,  Hermeticism,  and  Gnosticism.  May  not 
the  origins  of  Christianity  lie  hidden  among 
the  pledged  members  of  these  mystic  com- 
munities and  ascetic  orders  ?  Mead  feels 
himself  compelled  to  ask  this  question  because 
of  (i)  the  impossibility  of  historical  certainty 
regarding  any  objective  fact  in  the  traditional 
narratives  of  Jesus'  career,  (2)  the  silence  of 
extra-Christian  sources  in  the  first  century 
A.D.,  and  (3)  certain  obscure  data  which  seem 
absolutely  contradictory  to  the  current  Chris- 
tian tradition.  These  contradictory  data,  found 
mainly  in  the  Talmud,  the  "ToPdoth  Jeshu," 
and  Epiphanius,  are  thought  to  indicate  that 
the  Jesus  of  gospel  tradition  really  lived  about 


48  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

100  B.C.  He  was  not,  however,  a  very  sig- 
nificant personage  for  the  origin  of  the  new 
movement.  Practically  all  that  can  be  known 
of  him  historically  is  that  he  was  a  contemporary 
of  Alexander  Jannaeus,  that  he  was  called  Jeshu^ 
ben  Pandera  (and  sometimes  ben  Stada),  that 
he  had  spent  some  time  in  Egypt,  and  that  he 
belonged  to  one  of  the  secret  communities  from 
which  he  was  expelled  for  teaching  its  wisdom 
to  non-initiates.  The  new  movement  would 
probably  never  have  arisen  out  of  reverence  for 
this  historical  person,  since  the  basal  thought 
of  the  new  faith  was  the  "drama  of  the  Christ- 
mystery."  In  its  literature  Jesus  appears 
merely  as  one  of  the  characters  for  a  "historical 
romance"  into  which  allegories,  parables,  and 
actual  mystery  doings  are  woven,  as  was 
common  in  the  methods  of  haggada  and 
apocal>'ptic  of  that  day.  The  "common  docu- 
ment" of  the  gospels  arose  about  75  a.d.,  but  our 
present  gospels  are  second-century  products.^ 
Paul   is   a   genuine   historical   character   w^ho 

'  The  Talmud  usuallj'  writes  ITT"'  when  speaking  of  Jesus, 
in  distinction  from  ynU"'  (Joshua),  though  the  two  names  are 
originally  the  same  in  Hebrew. 

^  Cf.  Mead,  The  Gospels  aud  the  Gospel:  A  Study  in  the  Most 
Recent  Results  of  the  Lower  and  the  Higher  Criticism  (London, 
1902). 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      49 

wrote  the  principal  letters  traditionally  assigned 
to  him,  but  he  is  fundamentally  interested  in 
the  Christ-mystery,  a  gnostic  type  of  faith. 
Moreover,  when  his  letters  are  read  aright  they 
show  that  he  was  writing  to  communities  which 
had  existed  before  his  day  and  were  already 
familiar  with  gnostic  nomenclature.  Thus 
before  Paul's  time  pre-Christian  Christianity 
was  in  existence  not  only  in  Palestine  but  also 
in  the  Diaspora, 

W.  B.  Smith  likewise  holds  that  Christianity 
arose  out  of  a  Jesus-cult  existing  in  the  first 
century  b.c'  From  the  statement  of  Acts 
18:25,  that  Apollos  taught  carefully  "the 
things  concerning  Jesus  knowing  only  the 
baptism  of  John,"  it  is  inferred  that  Apollos 
was  not  yet  a  "Christian,"  but  that  he  was  an 
enthusiastic  missionary  of  the  pre-Christian 
Jesus-sect,  which  at  the  time  was  particularly 
strong  in  Alexandria.  But  this  cult  was  also 
strong  in  other  centers,  and  Cyprus  is  thought 
to  have  been  the  place  whence  that  form  of  the 
cult  which  came  to  be  known  as  Christianity 
took  its  start.  Yet  it  must  not  be  said  that 
Christianity  arose  from  any  one  center;  it  was 

^  Der  vorchristliche  Jesus  (Gicssen,  1906,  1911^);  Ecce  Deus: 
Die  urchristliche  Lehre  des  reingotllkhen  Jesu  (Jena,  191 1). 


50  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

multifocal.  The  "things  concerning  Jesus" 
should  not  be  understood,  it  is  claimed,  as 
information  about  the  earthly  career  of  a 
human  Jesus,  but  as  a  doctrine  about  a  divinity, 
a  Savior-god.  The  characteristic  feature  of 
primitive  Christianity,  its  fundamental  essence, 
was  its  emphasis  upon  monotheism;  the 
anthropomorphized  Jesus-god  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament writings  is  a  secondary  product.  This 
monotheistic  teaching  was  very  timely.  It 
answered  to  the  broader  outlook  which  the 
unification  of  empire  under  Alexander  and  under 
the  Romans  had  brought  about,  and  it  also  met 
the  needs  of  the  masses  who  longed  for  deliver- 
ance from  the  enslaving  forces  in  the  thought 
and  life  of  their  world.  But  this  new  teaching 
could  not  at  first  be  openly  propagated  \\ithout 
incurring  the  danger  of  disastrous  opposition, 
consequently  the  new  religion  appears  first  as 
a  secret  cult  mediating  to  its  initiates  the  knowl- 
edge of  the  true  God.  Now  this  search  for 
knowledge  of  the  highest  God  was  virtually  the 
problem  of  Gnosticism,  accordingly  many 
gnostic  notions  have  contributed  to  the  forma- 
tion of  the  New  Testament  thought. 

Bolland,  professor  of  philosophy  in  Leiden, 
makes  even  more  of  gnostic  speculation  as  a 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      5 1 

factor  in  the  rise  of  Christianity.  Encouraged 
by  his  behef  that  Vatke  by  philosophical  inquiry 
in  1835  really  anticipated  the  outcome  of  later 
study  upon  the  Pentateuch,  BoUand  thinks  that 
he,  by  applying  a  similar  type  of  Hegelian  specu- 
lation to  the  problem  of  Christian  origins,  can 
pronounce  the  final  word  upon  this  subject. 
As  a  result  of  his  "  philosophic vrij  onderzoek," 
Christianity  is  found  to  be  an  evolution  of 
Judeo-gnostic  ideas  starting  from  Alexandria 
and  gradually  spreading  north  and  west.  The 
Christian  Jesus  is  merely  an  allegorical  rehabili- 
tation of  the  Old  Testament  Joshua,^  the 
successor  of  Moses,  who  led  the  people  into  the 
land  of  promise.  Hence  the  appropriateness  of 
the  Jesus- Joshua  name,  since  both  etymologi- 
cally  and  traditionally  it  stands  for  God's 
salvation.  The  gospels,  which  announce  the 
coming  of  the  true  Joshua,  are  a  product  of 

^Het  eerste  Evangelie  in  het  Licht  van  Oiide  gegevens:  Eene 
Bijdrage  tot  de  Wordings geschiedenis  des  Christendoms  (Leiden, 
1906);  De  evangelische  Jozua:  Eene  Poging  tot  Aanwijzing  van  den 
Oorsprong  des  Christendoms  (Leiden,  1907);  2d  ed.,  Het  Evangelie: 
Eene  "vernieuwde"  Poging  tot  Aanwijzing  van  den  Oorsprong  des 
Christendoms  (ibid.,  1910).  Also  Gnosis  en  Evangelie:  Eene 
historische  Studie  (1906);  Het  Lijden  en  Sterven  van  Jezus  Christ  us 
(1907);  De  Achtergrond  der  Evangelien:  Eene  Bijdrage  tot  de 
Kennis  van  de  Wording  des  Christendoms  (1907).  Cf.  de  Zwaan, 
"De  Oorsprong  des  Christendoms  volgens  Prof.  Bolland,"  Theolo- 
gisch  Tijdschrijt,  XLV  (191 1),  38-87,  119-78. 


52  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

the  allegorizing  exegesis  of  Alexandria — ^purely 
a  Jesus-romance.  Traces  of  gnostic  notions 
are  discovered  throughout  the  New  Testament 
literature.  In  the  gospels,  for  example,  these 
appear  in  the  parable  of  the  sower,  in  Jesus' 
statement  that  God  only  is  good,  in  the  saying 
about  truth  revealed  unto  babes,  in  the  con- 
fession of  Peter,  in  the  miracle  narratives,  and 
in  the  passion  and  resurrection  stories.  The 
earliest  form  of  gospel  tradition  is  to  be  seen 
in  certain  non-canonical  fragments,  particularly 
in  the  so-called  Gospel  of  the  Eg}^tians,  an  Alex- 
andrian proto-Mark.  This  was  later  re- worked, 
perhaps  in  Rome,  to  produce  the  Judaistic 
Matthew,  the  Hellenistic  Luke,  the  neutral  and 
universalistic  Mark.  The  Fourth  Gospel  rep- 
resents a  Samaritan  form  of  Alexandrian 
Gnosticism,  and  was  probably  written  at 
Ephesus.  Paul's  letters  are  all  spurious  and  are 
products  of  clerical  circles  in  Rome  about  135 
A.D.  Here  Bolland  is  in  line  with  the  extreme 
school  of  Dutch  criticism,  as  represented  for 
instance  by  Van  Manen.^ 

'  Whittaker  {The  Origins  of  Christianity,  London,  1904,  1909'), 
adopting  Van  Manen's  conclusions  regarding  the  spuriousness  of 
all  the  Pauline  letters,  pushes  his  doubts  almost  to  the  point  of 
denying  Jesus'  existence.  All  the  New  Testament  books  are 
placed  in  the  2d  century,  following  a  jjcriod  of  oral  myth-making 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      53 

Lublinski,  the  late  Weimar  Schriftsteller, 
traces  Christianity  to  an  original  pre-Christian 
gnostic  sect/  but  this  sect  was  strictly  Jewish 
and  did  not  differentiate  itself  from  Judaism 
until  after  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem  in  70 
A.D.  According  to  Lublinski,  gnostic  tendencies 
must  have  been  circulating  in  the  Orient  from 
the  time  of  the  Persian  supremacy  on,  and  the 
Jews  cannot  have  escaped  this  influence.  It 
pervaded  the  whole  culture  of  the  ancient 
world.  With  it  came  theosophy,  mystery 
religion,  secret  cults,  and  the  like.  Its  actual 
presence  in  Judaism  is  thought  to  be  seen  in 
such  sects  as  the  Essenes,  the  Therapeutes,  the 
Gnostics  of  Justin,  the  Naassenes,  and  similar 
movements  of  which  no  records  have  been 
preserved.  Of  such  an  origin  was  Christianity. 
But  gnostic  thought  could  hardly  concern  itself 
primarily  with  a  man-deity,   Jesus;    its  first 

in  the  ist  century.  It  was  not  until  after  the  year  70  a.d.  that 
the  Christian  movement  began  to  appear,  and  at  the  same  time 
the  story  of  Jesus'  Hfe  and  death  was  formulated.  Before  that 
date  it  cannot  be  said  that  Christianity  existed,  except  as  a  vague 
messianic  movement  associated  with  some  obscure  cult.  Jesus 
may  not  be  an  entirely  fictitious  person,  yet  the  gospel  stories  are 
almost  wholly  mythical. 

'  Der  urchrislliche  Erdkreis  und  sein  Mythos:  I,  Die  Entstehung 
des  Christenlums  aus  der  anliken  KuUur;  II,  Das  werdcnde  Dogma 
vom  Lehcii  Jesu  (Jena,  1910). 


54  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

interest  could  only  be  in  a  divine  nature,  Christ. 
Hence  the  Jesus  of  gospel  history  and  the  story 
of  his  followers  in  the  first  century  are  creations 
of  mythical  fancy. 

Drews  has  absorbed,  perhaps  more  thor- 
oughly than  any  of  the  other  extremists,  the 
main  features  of  these  radical  positions.'  The 
five  theses  which  he  presented  for  discussion  at 
the  Berlin  conference  are  a  very  good  epitome 
of  his  position  :^ 

1.  Before  the  Jesus  of  the  gospels  there 
existed  already  among  Jewish  sects  a  Jesus-god 
and  a  cult  of  this  god  which  in  all  probability 
goes  back  to  the  Old  Testament  Joshua,  and 
with  this  were  blended  on  the  one  hand  Jewish 
apocalyptic  ideas  and  on  the  other  the  heathen 
notion  of  a  dying  and  rising  divine  redeemer. 

2.  Paul,  the  oldest  witness  for  Christianity, 
knows  nothing  of  a  "historical"  Jesus.  His 
incarnated  Son  of  God  is  just  that  Jewish- 
heathen  redeeming  divinity  Jesus  whom  Paul 

'  Die  Chrisliismythc  (Jena,  1909,  1910^;  English  tr.,  The  Christ 
Myth,  London  and  Chicago,  191 1);  Die  Christiismythe:  II.  Teil, 
Die  Zcugnisse  fiir  die  Gcschichtlichkeit  Jesic  Eine  Anlwort  an  die 
Schrijtgclehrteii  mit  besoitderer  BcriicksicliligtDig  dcr  theologischen 
Mclhode  (Jena,  191 1);  cf.  also  Die  Pelntslegende:  Ein  Beitragzur 
Mythologie  des  Christciitiims  (Frankfurt,  1910). 

'  Berliner  Religionsgesprdch,  p.  34. 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      55 

merely  set  in  the  center  of  his  rehgious  world- 
^dew  and  elevated  to  a  higher  degree  of  religio- 
ethical  reflection.  . 

3.  The  gospels  do  not  contain  the  history  of 
an  actual  man,  but  only  the  myth  of  the  god- 
man  Jesus  clothed  in  historical  form,  so  that 
not  only  the  Israelitish  prophets  along  with  the 
Old  Testament  types  of  the  Messiah,  a  Moses, 
Elijah,  Elisha,  etc.,  but  also  certain  mythical 
notions  of  the  Jews'  heathen  neighbors 
concerning  belief  in  the  redeeming  divinity 
made  their  contribution  to  the  "history"  of 
that  Jesus. 

4.  With  this  method  of  explanation  an  "  undis- 
coverable"  remainder  which  cannot  be  derived 
from  the  sources  indicated  may  still  exist,  yet 
this  relates  only  to  secondary  and  unimportant 
matters  which  do  not  affect  the  religious  belief 
in  Jesus;  while  on  the  contrary  all  that  is 
important,  religiously  significant,  and  decisive 
in  this  faith,  as  the  Baptism,  the  Lord's  Supper, 
the  Crucifixion,  and  the  Resurrection  of  Jesus, 
is  borrowed  from  the  cult-symbolism  of  the 
mythical  Jesus,  and  owes  its  origin  not  to  a 
historical  fact  but  to  the  pre-Christian  belief  in 
the  Jewish-heathen  redeeming  divinity. 

5.  The  "historical"  Jesus,  as  determined  by 


56  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

the  critical  theology,  is  at  any  rate  of  so  doubt- 
ful, intangible,  and  faded  a  form  that  faith  in 
him  cannot  possibly  longer  be  regarded  as  the 
indispensable  condition  of  religious  salvation. 

Thus  modern  radical  criticism  sets  up  its 
mythical  Christ  over  against  the  historical 
Jesus  of  liberal  theology.  While  there  is  much 
variety  in  the  details,  the  main  outlines  of  the 
radicals'  contention  are  clearly  defined.  They 
all  agree  in  treating  the  evidence  for  a  historical 
Jesus  as  wholly  unreliable.  This  involves  in 
most  instances  the  h>pothesis  of  a  second- 
century  date  for  the  New  Testament  writings. 
Robertson,  Mead,  and  Drews  hold  to  the 
genuineness  of  the  principal  Pauline  letters,^ 
yet  they  so  read  them  as  to  find  there  no  proof 
for  Jesus'  existence.  Much  stress  is  usually 
placed  upon  the  paucity  of  the  non-Christian 
references  to  the  new  religion  and  its  alleged 
founder  in  the  first  century  a.d.  On  the  positive 
side,  a  theory  of  Christianity's  origin  is  con- 
structed out  of  more  obscure  and  remote  data 
gleaned  from  the  life  and  thought  of  the  ancient 
world.  Although  at  this  point  there  are  wide 
variations  in  the  items  chosen,  the  choice  is 

■  W.  B.  Smith  seems  at  present  to  be  vacillating  on  this  ques- 
tion;  cf.  Eccc  Dciis,  p.  150. 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      57 

regulated  by  a  uniform  principle,  namely,  ideas 
not  persons  are  the  significant  factors  in  the 
origin  of  a  religion.  As  a  corollary  of  this 
principle,  it  follows  that  a  Christ-idea,  not  a 
historical  Jesus,  is  the  primal  formative  element 
in  the  genesis  of  Christianity.  Not  only  can 
any  unique  historical  founder  be  dispensed 
with,  but  this  possibility  proves  so  alluring  that 
his  person  is  forthwith  eliminated  from  the 
history.  Consequently  the  liberal  theologians' 
contention  for  the  significance  of  Jesus,  both 
as  a  figure  in  the  past  and  for  the  thought  of 
the  present,  seems  to  the  radicals  wholly 
fallacious. 

Thus  ultimately  this  problem,  which  ap- 
peared at  first  sight  to  be  purely  historical,  a 
question  of  gathering  data  and  testing  their 
reliability,  reaUy  involves  the  interpretation  of 
the  data  in  terms  of  presuppositions  as  to  the 
nature  of  religious  origins,  and  especially  as  to 
the  nature  of  primitive  Christianity.  And 
these  presuppositions  are  inseparably  bound  up 
with  the  question  of  what  is  vitally  important 
for  religion  today.  Not  all  writers  of  the 
radical  school  recognize  this  fact  so  clearly  as 
does  Drews — at  least  they  rarely  express 
themselves   so   clearly   on   this  phase   of   the 


58  TJic  Ilisloricily  of  Jesus 

subject.  In  closing  the  Berlin  debate  he  asked 
two  questions  which  he  regards  as  fundamental: 
What  is  the  secret  of  Christianity's  origin  in 
the  light  of  which  it  can  be  revitalized  for 
modern  times?  and  What  can  Christ  be  to  us 
today?  His  reply  to  both  questions  is  an 
appeal  for  the  recognition  of  the  supreme 
significance  of  the  Christ-myth.  It  is  not  a 
historical  Jesus  but  Christ  as  an  idea,  an  idea 
of  the  divine  humanity,  which  explains  the  rise 
of  Christianity  and  makes  possible  its  modern 
revitalization.  Furthermore,  in  his  preface  to 
the  Christusmythe  Drews  declares  that  the  book 
was  written  "directly  in  the  interests  of  religion 
from  the  conviction  that  the  forms  hitherto 
prevailing  are  no  longer  sufficient  for  the 
present,  that  especially  the  'Jesusism'  of  the 
modern  theology  is  fundamentally  irreligious 
and  itself  presents  the  greatest  hindrance  to 
all  true  religious  progress."^ 

'  Similarly  in  his  second  volume  Drews  emphasizes  this  idea: 
"Der  Kampf  um  die  Christusmythe  ist  zugleich  ein  Kampf  um 
die  Freiheit  und  Selbstiindigkeit  des  niodernen  Gcisteslebens,  um 

die  Unabhiingigkeit  der  Wissenschaft  und  Weltanschauung 

Der  Kampf  um  die  'Christusmj'the'  ist  aber  audi  zugleich  ein 
Kampf  um  die  Religion.  Allc  Religion  ist  ein  Leben  aus  den 
Tiefen  des  eigenen  unmittelbarcn  Selbst  hcraus,  ein  Wirken  im 
Geist  und  in  der  Freiheit.  Allcr  religiose  Fortschritt  voUzieht 
sich  in  der  Verinncrlichung  des  Glaubcns,  in  der  Verlegung  des 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      59 

This  opposition  to  the  "theologians"  some- 
times induces  a  polemical  tone  which  tends 
to  obscure  the  main  issues  of  the  problem.^ 
Argument  is  in  danger  of  becoming  mere 
special  pleading  for  a  "cause."  It  is  an 
obvious  fact  that  the  champions  of  this  modern 
radicalism  have  not  approached  their  task  as 
specialists  in  the  field  of  early  Christian 
history,  nor  are  they  thoroughly  equipped  to 
use  the  tools  of  that  science.  Not  only  so, 
but  they  deliberately  discard  those  tools  and 
condemn  the  methods  of  the  historical  theo- 
logian as  unscientific,  because  he  allows  Jesus 
an  especially  significant  place  and  refuses  to 
push  critical  skepticism  to  what  they  regard 
the  logical  issue — that  is,  the  denial  of  Jesus' 
existence.  This  animosity  toward  the  theo- 
logian sometimes  leads  to  a  misunderstanding, 
or  even  to  a  misrepresentation,  of  his  position. 
For  example,   Drews's  fifth   thesis  implies   a 

Schwerpunktes  des  Seins  aus  der  objektiven  in  die  subjektive 
Welt,  in  der  vertrauensvollen  Hingabe  an  den  Gott  in  uns  (p. 
xviii  f . ;  cf .  Drews,  Die  Religion  ah  Selbst-Bewusstsein  Gottes, 
Jena,  1906). 

'  Cf.  Steudel,  Wir  Gelehrten  vom  Fach!  Eine  Streitschrift  gegen 
Professor  D.  von  Sodens  "Hat  Jesus  gelebt?"  (Frankfurt,  1910), 
Im  Kampf  um  die  Christusmylhe.  Eine  Auseinandersetzung  ins- 
besondere  mil  J.  Weiss,  P.  W.  Schmiedel,  A ,  Ilarnack,  D,  Chwolson 
(Jena,  1910), 


6o  TJic  Historicity  of  Jesus 

criticism  of  the  "critical  theology"  which  is 
hardly  just,  if  the  reference  is  to  leading 
representatives  of  New  Testament  critical 
study  in  Germany.  Nor  is  it  true,  as  Drews 
again  insinuates,  that  these  scholars  think 
religion  today  is  to  be  explained  and  established 
"only  through  textual  criticism  in  a  philological 
way.'"  They  hold  neither  that  an  accurate 
critical  text,  nor  that  faith  in  a  "historical" 
Jesus,  in  the  sense  of  accepting  any  given 
number  of  doctrines  about  him,  constitutes 
the  essentials  of  religion.  It  seems  very 
evident,  however,  that  one  feature  of  the  pres- 
ent radical  movement,  and  one  which  looms 
large  in  the  vision  of  many  of  its  advocates,  is  a 
hatred  for  "theology"  and  the  "theologians."^ 
While  this  bitterness  has,  doubtless,  been 
aggravated  by  the  scathing  denunciations 
which  the  radicals  have  sometimes  received 
at  the  hands  of  their  opponents,  its  fundamental 
ground  is  the  question  of  what  religious  sig- 
nificance   shall    be    attached    to    Jesus.     The 

'  Berliner  Religionsgesprdch,  pp.  93  f. 

'  Drews  expresses  his  sentiments  thus  (parodying  Luther) : 
"Und  wenn  die  Welt  voll  T — hcologen  war' 
und  wollt'  uns  gar  verschlingcn, 
so  fiirchten  wir  uns  nicht  so  sehr: 
es  soil  uns  dock  gelingen!" 


The  Mythical  Christ  of  Radical  Criticism      6i 

"  my thologists  "  are  determined  that  this  shall 
be  nil. 

Under  these  circumstances  our  present  task 
involves  not  only  a  critical  estimate  of  the 
negative  arguments,  followed  by  a  constructive 
statement  of  the  extent  and  worth  of  the 
historical  evidence  for  Jesus'  existence,  but 
also  some  consideration  of  his  significance  as 
a  historical  personage  for  the  origin  and 
perpetuation  of  our  religion. 


CHAPTER  III 

AN    ESTIMATE   OF    THE    NEGATIVE    ARGU- 
MENT:   ITS  TREATMENT  OF  THE 
TRADITIONAL  EVIDENCE 

Until  recently  the  arguments  of  the  extrem- 
ists have  been  more  generally  ignored  than 
criticized.  Very  little  attention  was  paid  to 
Bauer's  work,  Kalthoff's  views  were  dismissed 
rather  summarily  by  the  world  of  New  Testa- 
ment scholarship,  Robertson,  Mead,  Smith,  and 
Jensen  were  hardly  taken  seriously,  and  a 
similar  fate  awaited  others  of  like  opinion  until 
Drews  appeared  upon  the  scene.  He  has  been 
more  successful  than  his  predecessors  in  arous- 
ing critical  opposition,  and  this  criticism  has 
come  from  several  scholars  of  first  rank  in  the 
field  of  New  Testament  study.  In  view  of 
this  success  Drews  congratulates  himself  on 
having  "hit  the  bull's-eye." 

For  the  most  part  these  refutations  are  in 
the  form  of  published  addresses  or  popular 
lectures,  pointing  out  the  defects  of  the  radical 
position  and  restating  the  case  for  Jesus'  his- 
toricity from  the  standpoint  of  modern  critical 
scholarship.     But  these  criticisms  do  not  repre- 

62 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        63 

sent  merely  one  phase  or  one  school  of  modern 
thinking;  they  emanate  from  various  sources. 
Even  a  Jewish  rabbi  has  come  forward  in 
defense  of  Jesus '  historical  personality,^  though 
Jewish  interest  in  this  subject  would  naturally 
not  be  great.  Nor  would  it  be  strange  if  Roman 
Catholic  scholars  should  dismiss  this  question, 
on  which  the  authority  of  the  church  speaks 
so  clearly,  without  serious  discussion.  Yet  a 
work  like  that  of  Meffert^  shows  an  appreci- 
ation of  the  problem  and  meets  it  strongly, 
from  the  Catholic  point  of  view.  The  more 
conservative  type  of  Protestant  thought,  repre- 
sented for  example  by  Dunkmann,^  while 
sympathizing  with  the  extremists'  condemna- 
tion of  the  "liberal"  interpretation  of  Jesus, 
stoutly  maintains  a  historical  basis  for  the 
Christ  of  faith.  Even  recent  writers  of  the 
religions geschichtliclie  school  are  quite  unwilling 
to  carry  skepticism  to  its  extreme  limit.'' 

'  G.  Klein,  1st  Jesus  eine  hisiorische Personlichkeil?  (Tubingen, 
1910;  from  the  Swedish,  Aer  Jesus  en  hislorisk  personlighet? 
Stockholm,  19  lo). 

^  Die  geschichlliche  Existcnz  Christl  (Munich,  1904,  1910^). 

3  Der  historische  Jesus,  der  mythologische  Christus  iind  Jesus  der 
Christ  (Leipzig,  1910). 

4  Cf.  Zimmern,  Ziim  Streil  um  die  "Christusmythe":  Das  baby- 
lonische  Material  in  seinen  Hauptpunkten  dargestelU  (Berlin,  1910) ; 
Bruckner,  Das  fiinfle  Evangelium  (Tubingen,  1910);  Jeremias, 
Hal  Jesus  Christus  gelebt?  (Leipzig,  191 1). 


64  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

As  was  to  be  expected,  however,  the  chief 
opponents  of  the  "  my thologists  "  belong  to  the 
so-called  liberal  school  of  modern  theology. 
Von  Soden  replied  to  Drews  at  the  Berlin  con- 
ference, and  he  also  issued  a  small  pamphlet' 
in  which  he  sought  to  show  the  value  of  the 
Christian  evidence  and  to  exhibit  the  defects 
of  the  opponents'  position.  Jiilicher's  lec- 
ture," though  written  with  special  reference  to 
Jensen's  radicalism,  gives  less  attention  to 
the  views  of  opponents  than  to  a  positive 
statement  of  the  reliability  of  Christian  tradi- 
tion. After  defining  the  nature  of  "historical" 
proof,  he  dwells  upon  the  worth  of  our  sources 
of  information  and  condemns  Jensen 's  methods 
as  erroneous  scientifically.  Especially  note- 
worthy surveys  of  the  radical  movement  as  a 
whole  are   made  by  Weinel,^  J.   Weiss,''  and 

^  Hat  Jesus  gelebt?  Aus  den  geschichtlichen  Urkiinden  beani- 
wortet  (Berlin,  1910). 

'  Hal  Jesus  geleU?  (Marburg,  igio). 

^Ist  das  "liber ale"  Jesusbild  widerlegt?  Eine  Antwort  an 
seine  " positiven"  und  seine  radikalen  Gegner  mil  besonderer  Riick- 
sicht  auf  A.  Drews,  Die  Chrislusmythe  (Tubingen,  1910;  enlarged 
from  the  same  author's  "1st  unsere  Verkiindigung  von  Jesus 
unhaltbar  geworden?"  Zeilschrifl  fUr  Theologie  und  Kirche,  XX 
[1910],  1-38,  89-129). 

*  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  Mythus  oder  Geschichte?  Eine  Ausein- 
andersetzung  mit  Kalthojff,  Drews,  Jensen  (Tubingen,  1910). 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        65 

Clemen/  Each  analyzes  somewhat  minutely 
the  different  phases  of  the  problem,  criticizing 
at  length  the  radical  position  and  setting  over 
against  it  his  own  understanding  of  the  valid 
elements  of  Christian  tradition.  Each  author 
has  his  distinctive  purpose,  as  the  subtitles 
of  the  several  books  indicate,  but  the  writers 
are  in  general  agreement  as  to  their  main 
conclusions.  They  have  handled  the  problem 
so  candidly  and  thoroughly  that  the  radicals 
can  no  longer  justly  complain  of  inattention.^ 

^Der  geschichtlicke  Jesus:  Eine  allgemeinverstandliche  Unter- 
suchung  dcr  Frage:  hat  Jesus  geleht,  tmd  was  wollte  er?  (Giessen, 
1911). 

'  Further  defenses  of  Jesus'  historicity,  mostly  in  pamphlet 
form  and  from  different  points  of  view,  are:  Beth,  Hat  Jesus 
gelchl?  (Berhn,  1910);  Bornemann,  Jesus  als  Problem  (Frankfurt, 
1909);  Brephol,  Die  Wahrheit  iiber  Jesus  von  Nazareth  (Berlin, 
1911);  Broecker,  Die  Wahrheit  iiber  Jesus  (Hamburg,  191 1); 
Carpenter,  The  Historical  Jesus  and  the  Theological  Christ  (Lon- 
don, 191 1) ;  Chwolson,  Ueber  die  Frage,  ob  Jesus  gelebt  hat  (Leipzig, 
1910);  Delbriick,  Hat  Jesus  Christus  gelebt?  (Berlin,  1910); 
Dietze,  Kritische  Bemerkungen  ziir  neuesten  Aufage  von  A.  Drews, 
Christusmythe  (Bremen,  1910);  Fiebig,  Jiidische  W under geschich- 
ten  des  neulestamentlichen  Zeilalters  (Tubingen,  191 1);  Grutz- 
macher,  Jesusverehrung  oder  Christusglaube?  (Rostock,  191 1); 
Hauck,  Hat  Jesus  gelebt?  (Berlin,  1910);  Kiihn,  1st  Christus  eine 
geschichtliche  Person?  (Halle  a.S.,  1910);  Loisy,  A  propos 
d'histoire  des  religions  (Paris,  1911 ;  chap,  v  deals  with  the  "  Christ- 
myth");  Rossington,  Z)J6?  Jesus  Really  Live?  A  Reply  to  "The 
Christ  Myth"  (London,  191 1);  Schmidt,  F.  J.,  Der  Christus  des 
Glaubens  und  der  Jesus  der  Geschichte  (Frankfurt,  1910) ;  Valensin, 
Jesus-Christ  et  I'etude  comparee  des  religions  (Paris,  191 1).     Sur- 


66  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

In  forming  an  estimate  of  the  value  of  the 
negative  argument,  there  are  two  important 
questions  which  one  may  ask.  Does  it  suc- 
/  cessfully  dispose  of  the  traditional  evidence 
for  the  origin  of  Christianity  ?  and,  Does  it  sub- 
stitute an  adequate  reconstruction  of  the  his- 
/  tory?  Bruno  Bauer,  as  we  have  already 
observed,  was  gradually  led  to  his  conclusions 
by  his  critical  examination  of  the  gospels  and 
the  Pauline  epistles.  Consequently  the  formu- 
lation of  a  new  theory  of  Christian  origins 
was  the  last  stage  in  his  work.  Today  this 
process  is  usually  inverted.  The  radicals  come 
to  a  study  of  the  New  Testament  with  a  fixed 
notion  of  the  way  Christianity  arose,  hence 
they  are  not  greatly  concerned  with  the  Christ- 
tian  literature  except  to  demonstrate  that  its 
content  can  be  explained  in  accordance  with 
their  hypothesis.     This  method  may  be  legiti- 

veys  of  the  literature  are  made  by  Bacon  in  the  Hibbert  Journal, 
IX  (191 1),  731-53;  Case  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology, 
XV  (1911),  20-42;  Dibelius  in  the  Theologische  Literalurzeilnng, 
1910,  cols.  545-52,  and  1911,  cols.  135-40;  Esser  in  the  Theolo- 
gische  Revue,  191 1,  cols.  1-6  and  41-47;  Loisy  in  the  Revue 
d'histoire  et  de  lilterature  religieuses  (nouvelle  seric),  I  (1910), 
401-35;  Mehlhorn,  Prolestantische  Monatslicftc,  XIV  (1910),  415- 
21  and  XV  (1911),  17-27;  Muirhead,  Review  of  Theology  and  Phil- 
osophy, VI  (1911),  577-86  and  633-46;  N.  Schmidt,  Intern.  Journal 
of  Eihics,  X.X.II  (191 1),  19-39;  Windisch,  Theologische  Rundschau 
XIII  (1910),  163-82,  199-220,  and  XIV  (191 1),  114-37. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        67 

mate  if  it  satisfies  two  conditions,  namely,  if 
it  treats  fairly  the  traditional  evidence  which 
it  proposes  to  set  aside,  and  if  its  constructive 
hypothesis  is  otherwise  properly  substantiated. 

In  the  first  place,  is  the  explicit  New  Testa- 
ment testimony  to  the  existence  of  Jesus  as  a 
historical  person  adequately  disposed  of  on  the 
theory  that  he  never  lived  at  all  ?  If  he  is  not 
a  historical  character  this  supposed  testimony 
to  his  existence  is  either  fictitious  or  else  it  has 
commonly  been  misread.  Appeal  is  sometimes 
made  to  each  of  these  possibilities. 

It  has  already  been  noted  that  several  repre- 
sentatives of  the  modern  radical  movement 
think  all  the  New  Testament  literature  is  spuri- 
ous, a  late  product  of  theological  and  literary 
fancy.  But  the  general  arguments  for  this 
opinion  are  open  to  serious  criticism.  They 
commonly  ignore,  or  unceremoniously  dismiss, 
all  external  testimony  for  the  early  existence 
of  the  New  Testament  books.  They  lay  great 
stress  upon  alleged  parallelisms  between  Chris- 
tianity and  earlier  or  contemporary  heathenism, 
inferring  that  this  proves  the  secondary  char- 
acter of  the  Christian  literature.  But  the  mere 
fact  of  parallelism  in  even  a  large  number  of 
points  can  hardly  prove  more  than  the  very 


68  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

evident  fact  that  the  founders  of  Christianity 
were  men  of  their  own  age.  Furthermore  this 
skill  in  discovering  parallels  often  seems  greatly- 
overworked,  while  the  distinctive  features  of 
Christianity  are  unduly  minimized.  Even  if 
the  New  Testament  writers  sometimes  used 
gnostic  nomenclature,  or  appropriated  ideas 
and  terms  familiar  to  the  worshipers  of  Adonis, 
it  is  still  perfectly  clear  that  they  purport  to 
be  preaching  a  new  religion.  No  amount  of 
parallelism,  not  even  demonstrable  "borrow- 
ing," disposes  of  the  genuineness  of  these  writ- 
ings unless  it  can  be  demonstrated  that  the 
personal  note  contained  in  them  is  not  genuine 
and  that  the  idea  of  newness  is  itself  fictitious. 
In  general  this  radical  rejection  of  the  New 
Testament  evidence  seems  to  rest  on  unreli- 
able grounds,  and  is  not  sufficiently  thorough- 
going to  touch  the  heart  of  the  problem. 

Especially  important  in  this  connection  is 
the  treatment  of  the  Pauline  letters.  Accord- 
ing to  tradition  they  were  written  mostly  in 
the  sixth  decade  of  the  first  century,  and  they 
are  so  definite  in  their  reference  to  a  historical 
■Jesus  that  their  spuriousness,  either  wholly  or 
in  part,  is  commonly  admitted  to  be  a  necessary 
presupposition  for  the  denial  of  Jesus'  historicity. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        69 

Some  would  maintain  that  the  whole  Paul- 
ine section  of  the  New  Testament  literature 
is  a  pseudepigraphic  product.  This  theory  is 
not  of  itself  impossible,  particularly  for  an  age 
whose  literary  method  was  to  set  forth  teach- 
ing under  the  authority  of  persons  prominent 
in  the  past.  The  names  of  Moses,  Enoch, 
Elijah,  Isaiah,  Daniel,  were  used  in  this  way, 
so  that  prominent  figures  in  early  church  his- 
tory were  quite  naturally  made  to  play  a 
similar  role.  And  since  the  Christians  of  the 
second  and  third  centuries  rejected  some  writ- 
ings put  forward  under  the  name  of  Peter  and 
of  Paul,  because  the  marks  of  pseudepigraphy 
seemed  evident,  it  is  certainly  proper  in  the 
interests  of  accurate  scholarship  to  ask  whether 
those  who  made  the  canonical  selection  were 
sufficiently  exact  in  distinguishing  between  the 
genuine  and  the  spurious.  The  very  fact  that 
some  pseudepigraphic  writings  are  known  to 
have  been  in  circulation  opens  the  way  for 
the  supposition  that  still  more  may  have  been 
of  this  character.  Indeed  present-day  criti- 
cism of  even  the  moderately  conservative  type 
has  accustomed  us  to  thinking  of  the  so-called 
Pastoral  Epistles,  if  not  indeed  of  some  other 
alleged  Pauline  letters,   as  belonging  in   this 


70  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

class  of  literature.  But  if  some  letters  are 
spurious,  then  may  not  all  be  so?  The  radi- 
cals not  only  admit  this  as  a  possibility  but 
claim  it  as  a  probability. 

From  this  conclusion  it  follows  that  this 
literature  must  have  arisen  at  a  time  when  the 
supposed  Jesus  and  Paul  belonged  to  so  remote 
a  past  that  there  was  little  danger  of  any 
serious  difficulty  in  accepting  as  real  their 
assumed  existence.  It  is  true  that  among 
primitive  peoples  historical  feeling  is  not  exact- 
ing in  its  demands.  The  borderland  between 
fancy  and  fact  is  often  vague,  so  perhaps  the 
lapse  of  only  a  few  decades  would  make  the 
launching  of  this  fiction  possible.  Yet  it  can 
hardly  have  been  successfully  accomplished 
among  men  who  personally  knew  the  times 
and  places  in  which  these  fictitious  charac- 
ters were  assumed  to  have  lived.  Therefore 
these  letters,  if  not  genuine,  must  be,  at  the 
earliest,  second-century  products. 

But  when  one  examines  the  argument  for 
the  spuriousness  and  the  late  dating  of  the 
letters,  he  finds  that  it  amounts  to  Httle  more 
than  an  assertion  of  skepticism,  which  on  being 
repeated  by  its  advocates  is  too  easily  given 
the   credentials   of   a   demonstration.     In    all 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        71 

fairness  to  the  modern  radical  movement  it 
may  be  said  that  its  exponents  have  presented 
no  thoroughgoing  argument  for  the  spurious- 
ness  of  all  the  Pauline  letters.  Bauer's  results 
are  referred  to  occasionally,  and  the  negative 
position  of  the  Dutch  school  represented  more 
recently  by  Van  Manen,  or  the  skepticism  of 
Steck,  is  sometimes  cited  in  this  connection. 
But  all  of  these  positions  certainly  need  at 
least  to  be  revised  and  supplemented  before 
the  world  of  historical  scholarship  can  be 
expected  to  treat  them  seriously.  Jensen's 
attempt  to  derive  the  Pauline  literature  from 
the  Gilgamesh  legend  and  W.  B.  Smith's  criti- 
cism of  Romans  are  similarly  unsatisfactory. 
Jensen's  treatment  is  only  incidental  to  his 
discussion  of  the  gospels,  and  Smith's  con- 
clusions have  not  only  suffered  severely  under 
the  criticism  of  Schmiedel,  but,  if  valid,  scarcely 
touch  the  main  problem.  When  reduced  to  its 
lowest  terms,  the  argument  for  the  spuriousness 
of  all  the  Pauline  writings  seems  to  be  chiefly 
a  refusal  to  treat  seriously  the  probability  of 
genuineness  in  the  case  of  any  one  of  these 
letters.  Thus  an  attempt  is  made  to  throw 
the  whole  burden  of  proof  upon  the  one  who 
entertains   the   more   usual   opinion   that   the 


72  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

chief  epistles  of  Paul  are  historical  documents 
of  first  importance.  It  is  fair  enough  to  de- 
mand that  one  justify  his  belief  in  the  genuine- 
ness of  these  letters,  but  it  is  equally  fair  to  point 
out  that  the  bald  assertion  of  disbelief  is  not  an 
adequate  argument  for  spuriousness. 

A  second  ty^Q  of  this  general  skepticism 
admits  the  reality  of  Paul  as  an  important 
individual  for  the  founding  of  the  new  religion, 
but  holds  that  his  letters  in  their  present  form 
are  the  result  of  considerable  reworking  on  the 
part  of  later  Christians.  Drews  in  particular 
would  save  Paul  in  so  far  as  the  latter  can  be 
cited  as  the  exponent  of  a  religion  built  upon 
faith  in  an  idea — the  item  which  Drews  regards 
as  central  in  all  religion.  As  might  be  expected, 
the  fundamental  problems  of  Pauline  study  are 
scarcely  touched  and  no  fixed  principles  of 
critical  investigation  are  followed.  One  takes 
from  the  literature  what  he  pleases  and  leaves 
what  he  pleases.  We  are  told  at  the  start  that 
no  compelling  proof  for  the  authenticity  of  any 
of  the  letters  can  be  produced,  and  yet  from 
them  a  somewhat  elaborate  and  confident  expo- 
sition of  alleged  Pauline  thought  is  derived. 
Anything  in  these  writings  supposedly  pointing 
to  the  historicity  of  Jesus  is  explained  other- 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        73 

wise,  or  is  called  a  later  insertion.  Finally  it 
is  asserted  that  "the  Pauline  letters  contain 
no  compulsion  of  any  sort  for  the  supposition 
of  a  historical  Jesus,  and  no  man  would  be 
likely  to  find  such  there  if  it  were  not  already 
for  him  an  established  assumption." 

At  once  several  familiar  passages  demand 
explanation.  For  instance  I  Cor.  ii:23ff., 
describing  the  last  supper  on  the  night  of 
Jesus'  betrayal,  seems  to  point  very  clearly 
to  a  specific  event  in  the  life  of  a  historical 
individual.  This  difficulty  is  avoided  by 
assuming  that  "we  have  here  to  do  with  a 
clearly  later  insertion,"  at  least  the  reference  to 
the  betrayal  is  "certainly  inserted."  Similarly 
the  implication  of  a  historical  Jesus  in  I  Cor. 
15: 5  if.  is  either  another  interpolation,  or  else 
these  experiences  are  purely  ecstatic  in  character 
and  do  not  imply,  as  is  commonly  supposed, 
any  thought  of  a  definite  historical  person  whose 
death  preceded  these  unusual  manifestations.^ 
It  is  a  convenient  elasticity  of  critical  method 
which  can  allow  these  options.     Again,  the  men- 

'  Similarly  Steudel,  speaking  of  these  and  kindred  passages 
says:  "Wenn  diese  Stellen  nicht  eingeschoben  sind,  dann  gibt  es 
im  Alten  und  Neuen  Testament  iiberhaupt  keine  Interpolate." — 
Wir  Gclehrlen  vom  Fach!  p.  65.  W.  B.  Smith  also  falls  into  line 
here  {Ecce  Dens,  pp.  148  ff.)- 


74  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

tion  of  "brothers"  of  the  Lord,  as  in  I  Cor. 
9:5  and  Gal.  1:19,  is  to  be  understood  in  the 
sense  of  community  brotherhood.  Yet  we  are 
not  told  why  Paul  in  the  same  context  should 
not  have  included  Peter  and  Barnabas  in  this 
brotherhood.  Moreover  brothers  in  the  Lord, 
not  brothers  of  the  Lord,  is  Paul's  mode  of 
thought  for  the  community  relationship.  These 
are  typical  examples  of  both  the  brevity  and 
the  method  Drews  uses  in  disposing  of  the 
Pauline  evidence.  It  is  difhcult  to  take  argu- 
ments of  this  sort  seriously,  particularly  when 
they  are  presented  so  briefly  and  with  no  appar- 
ent ground  of  justification  except  the  presup- 
position that  a  historical  Jesus  must  not  be 
recognized. 

The  gospel  evidence  is  disposed  of  in  a  simi- 
lar manner.  To  take  Drews 's  method  as  a 
sample  of  the  radical  treatment,  the  earliest 
external  testimony  to  the  gospels'  origin  is  set 
aside  on  the  ground  of  Eusebius'  "notorious 
unreliability."  Upon  the  fact,  now  widely 
recognized,  that  the  evangelists  combined  inter- 
pretation with  historical  narrative,  is  based  the 
broad  generalization  that  all  is  fiction.  The 
efforts  of  critical  study  to  determine  more 
accurately  the  real  historical  background  are 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        75 

characterized  as  a  "half  comic,  half  sad  per- 
formance "  and  a  "horrible  fiasco. "  Yet  appar- 
ently without  any  suspicion  of  the  comic,  we  are 
asked  to  believe  that  so  matter-of-fact  a  circum- 
stance as  Jesus'  association  with  his  disciples 
is  merely  a  variation  of  the  myth  about  Jason 's 
search  for  the  golden  fleece. 

Drews 's  handling  of  the  gospel  evidence  is 
fairly  representative  of  the  radicals'  general 
method.  The  more  substantial  results  of  the 
modern  critical  school  of  gospel  study  are  not 
recognized  as  having  any  value.  All  emphasis 
falls  upon  the  negative  aspects  of  this  work, 
and  its  most  extreme  negative  conclusions  are 
constantly  set  in  the  foreground.  Much  is 
made  of  the  critics'  disagreement  on  questions 
of  detail,  and  of  their  inability  to  fix  upon  a 
definite  quantum  of  information,  no  item  of 
which  could  conceivably  be  questioned.  We 
are  often  reminded  of  the  fact  that  none  of  our 
gospels  belong  to  Jesus'  own  generation,  that 
they  are  all  admittedly  more  or  less  interested 
in  expounding  Christian  doctrine,  and  that 
many  of  their  ideas  may  quite  likely  be  colored 
by  current  Jewish  or  heathen  notions.  But 
what  would  all  this  prove?  The  immediate 
conclusion  can  hardly  be,  as  the  radicals  would 


76  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

contend,  that  there  was  no  historical  person 
Jesus.  The  only  warranted  inference  would  be 
that  the  preachers  of  the  second  and  third  gen- 
erations of  Christians  were  primarily  interested 
in  producing  edifying  narrative  about  Jesus. 
For  example  if  it  were  proved  beyond  question 
that  the  disciples'  interpretation  of  his  death 
was  phrased  in  terms  of  heathen  notions  about 
the  saving  value  of  the  death  of  an  imaginary 
sa\dor-deity,  it  would  by  no  means  follow  as  a 
logical  imperative  that  Jesus'  alleged  death  is 
fictitious.  In  fact  the  logical  inference  would 
seem  to  be  that  memory  of  his  actual  death  was 
a  necessary  incentive  for  the  new  form  of  inter- 
pretation. 

The  defectiveness  of  this  treatment  of  the 
traditional  evidence  is  perhaps  not  so  patent  in 
the  case  of  the  gospels  as  it  is  in  the  case  of  the 
Pauline  epistles.  Yet  fundamentally  it  is 
the  same.  There  is  the  same  easy  dismissal 
of  all  external  testimony,  the  same  disdain 
'for  the  saner  conclusions  of  modern  criti- 
cism, the  same  inclination  to  attach  most 
value  to  extremes  of  criticism,  the  same  neglect 
of  all  the  personal  and  natural  features  of  the 
narrative,  the  same  disposition  to  put  skep- 
ticism forward  in  the  garb  of  valid  demon- 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        77 

stration,  and  the  same  ever  present  predis- 
position against  recognizing  any  evidence  for 
Jesus'  actual  existence. 

While  these  criticisms  apply  to  the  extremists 
in  general,  there  is  a  distinctiveness  about 
Jensen's  method  which  in  a  certain  sense  puts 
it  in  a  class  by  itself.  For  most  of  the  modern 
radicals  the  question  of  eliminating  the  gospel 
evidence  is  one  of  secondary  importance  in 
comparison  with  the  defence  of  their  theory  of 
Christian  origins.  This  is  not  so  true  of  Jensen. 
At  least  whatever  his  ultimate  interest  may  be, 
his  argument  concerns  itself  primarily  with  the 
gospel  materials.  Moreover  his  explanation  of 
the  gospels'  origin,  as  a  phase  of  the  modern 
skeptical  movement,  stands  in  a  somewhat 
isolated  position.  While  he  is  approvingly 
referred  to  as  an  example  of  skepticism,  his 
results  have  not  been  incorporated  at  all  exten- 
sively into  the  work  of  the  later  representa- 
tives of  this  school.  For  these  reasons  his 
views  call  for  a  separate  examination.  '' 

His  theory  of  gospel  origins  is  that  these 
writings  are  merely  literary  imitations  of  the 
Babylonian  Gilgamesh  epic.  This  is  thought 
to  be  proved  by  the  discovery  of  a  series  of 
parallels  between  the  incidents  of  the  gospel 


78 


The  Historicity  of  Jesus 


narrative  and  the  Gilgamesh  story.  Agree- 
ments are  found  not  alone  in  individual  items 
but  also  in  the  successive  arrangement  of  the 
events.  On  this  latter  point  the  author  places 
much  emphasis.  Hence  the  force  of  his  argu- 
ment can  be  estimated  best  by  citing  a  section 
of  the  most  important  parallels,  preserving  the 
order  of  incidents  as  arranged  by  the  author } 


1.  At  the  beginning  of  the 
Gilgamesh  legend  Eabani  was 
created  by  a  miracle  at  the 
command  of  the  gods. 

2.  Eabani  lived  far  from  men 
in  the  steppe  (wilderness). 

3.  Eabani  (is  hairy  and)  has 
long  hair  on  his  head.  Pre- 
sumably he  is  clad  with  skins. 


4.  Eabani  lives  as  the  beasts 
of  the  steppe  (wilderness)  on 
grass  and  herbs  and  water. 


5.  Gilgamesh  dreams  of  a 
star  resembling  a  host  of  the 
heavenly  Lord  who  is  stronger 
than  he,  then  of  a  man  (human 
being),  and  this  star,  as  well  as 
the  man,  is  symbolic  of  Eabani 
who  thereupon  comes  immedi- 
ately to  Gilgamesh. 


At  the  beginning  of  the  Jesus 
story  John  was  produced  by  a 
miracle  in  accordance  with  an 
announcement  by  an  angel. 

John  lived  in  the  steppe  (wil- 
derness) near  the  Jordan. 

John,  as  a  Nazirite,  wears  his 
hair  uncut  and  long.  He  is 
clad  with  a  garment  of  camel's 
hair  and  girded  with  a  belt  of 
leather  or  skin. 

John  lives  on  what  is  to  be 
found  in  the  wilderness:  on 
grasshoppers  and  wild  honey, 
and,  like  a  Nazirite,  drinks  no 
wine. 

John  knows  (by  revelation) 
and  prophesies  of  Jesus'  com- 
ing as  the  coming  of  a  man  who 
is  stronger  than  he,  and  soon 
afterward  this  Jesus  comes  to 
John. 


'  Moses,  Jesus,  Paiilus,  pp.  27-30. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        79 


6.  To  all  appearances  Eabani 
afterward  flees  into  the  steppe 
(wilderness) . 

7.  The  sun-god  calls  from 
heaven  to  Eabani  in  the  steppe 
(wilderness)  with  kind  words 
and  speaks  to  him  of  delicious 
food  or  loaves  and  of  the  kiss- 
ing of  his  feet  by  the  kings  of 
the  earth. 


8.  Eabani  returns  from  the 
steppe  (wilderness)  to  his 
abode,  the  home  of  Gilgamesh. 

9.  The  dominion  of  [the 
great  serpent  and]  the  great 
lion  is  conquered  by  a  god  who 
comes  down  on  a  cloud  ( ?)  to 
whom  the  dominion  of  the 
world  is  to  be  transferred. 

10.  [Conquest  of  the  great 
serpent.] 

1 1.  A  fever  plague,  Xisuthros 
intercedes  for  plagued  human- 
ity and  in  this  way  probably  the 
plague  was  brought  to  an  end. 

12.  Xisuthros  builds  himself 
a  ship  and  keeps  it  ready. 

13.  On  an  evening  Xisuthros, 
with  his  family  and  his  nearest 
friends,  enters  the  ship. 

14.  A  storm  arises  and 
ceases. 


Jesus  afterward  flees  into  the 
wilderness. 

Immediately  before  his  flight 
into  the  wilderness  the  spirit  of 
God  descends  from  heaven 
upon  Jesus  and  a  voice  from 
heaven  calls  him  God's  beloved 
Son.  In  the  wilderness,  more- 
over, someone  (i.e.,  the  devil) 
speaks  with  Jesus  about  bread 
(which  Jesus  should  make  from 
stones)  and  about  the  fact  that 
Jesus  should  rule  all  kingdoms 
of  the  earth  if  he  kissed  the 
devil's  feet. 

Jesus  returns  from  the  wil- 
derness to  his  native  place. 

The  kingdom  of  heaven  and 
of  God  is  near,  which  is  to  be 
introduced  by  Jesus'  coming  on 
the  clouds. 


Expulsion  of  the  demon  in 
the  synagogue  at  Capernaum. 

Peter's  mother-in-law  is  sick 
with  fever  and  Jesus  makes  her 
well. 

A  boat  is  kept  ready  for 
Jesus. 

On  an  evening  Jesus  with  his 
disciples  enters  the  boat. 

A  storm  arises  and  ceases. 


8o 


The  Historicity  of  Jesus 


15.  Xisuthros  lands  with  liis 
family  far  from  his  abode. 

16.  Sinful  humanity  and 
most  beasts,  among  them  also 
the  swine,  are  drowned  in  the 
flood. 

17.  On  a  seventh  day,  after 
an  interview  with  three  inti- 
mate persons,  Xisuthros  comes 
to  the  top  of  the  high  mountain 
of  the  deluge  and  then  is 
deified. 

18.  The  voice  of  the  invisible 
Xisuthros  out  of  the  air  to  his 
ship  companions  says:  You  are 
to  be  pious. 

19.  Chumbaba  adventure. 

20.  Gilgamesh  reproaches 
Ishtar  for  her  love  afifairs  and 
the  evils  she  has  done  her 
lovers. 

21.  The  bull  adventure. 

22.  Eabani  dies. 


Jesus  lands  in  Perca  opposite 
his  native  place. 

Two  thousand  or  more 
demons,  and  two  thousand 
swine,  are  drowned  in  the  sea 
over  which  Jesus  went. 

After  six  or  eight  days,  thus 
certainly  originally  after  a 
week  of  seven  days,  Jesus  with 
three  most  intimate  persons 
went  on  to  a  high  mountain 
and  was  glorified  and  called 
God's  Son. 

The  voice  out  of  the  cloud  on 
the  mountain  of  transfiguration 
says :  You  are  to  hear  Jesus. 

[Apparent!}'  omitted  but  is  in 
a  new  place.] 

John  blames  Herod  for  hav- 
ing married  his  second  wife, 
Herodias,  and  for  his  evil  deeds. 

[Apparently  omitted  but  is  in 
quite  a  new  place.] 

John  the  Baptist  dies  (at  a 
corresponding  place  in  the 
story) . 


And  so  on  until  the  end  of  Jesus'  career  is 
reached. 

39.  [Gilgamesh  dies.]  Jesus  dies. 

It  is  evident  that  no  importance  can  be 
attached  to  any  likeness  between  individuals. 
At   first   John   is   Eabani,    then   he   becomes 


An  Estimalc  of  the  Negative  Argument        8i 

Gilgamesh  and  Jesus  is  Eabani  (No.  5),  then 
Jesus  becomes  Xisuthros  (Nos.  11-17),  then 
Xisuthrosis  God  (No.  18).  Wlien  John  reproves 
Herod  he  is  Gilgamesh  (No.  20),  but  when  he 
dies  in  consequence  of  this  boldness  he  is 
Eabani  (No.  22).  In  the  uncited  parallels 
which  follow  there  is  the  same  confusion :  when 
Jesus  starts  across  the  lake  with  the  disciples 
he  is  Gilgamesh;  when  the  storm  arises  he  is 
Xisuthros;  again,  Gilgamesh  represents  the  rich 
young  ruler,  but  in  the  immediately  following 
incident  he  represents  Jesus '  disciples ;  Jesus  is 
Xisuthros  when  he  gives  the  loaves  to  the 
disciples  and  they  are  Gilgamesh,  but  in  the 
very  next  parallel  Jesus  is  again  Gilgamesh; 
then  Jesus  is  Xisuthros  and  Peter  is  Gilgamesh, 
though  immediately  afterward  the  rich  man  in 
hell  is  Gilgamesh  and  Lazarus  in  Abraham's 
bosom  is  Eabani,  notwithstanding  the  corre- 
spondence between  Eabani  and  John  the  Bap- 
tist at  the  time  of  the  latter 's  death.  It  cannot 
be  said  that  the  life-story  of  any  hero  in  the 
Babylonian  legend  parallels  that  of  any  New 
Testament  character,  and  indeed,  so  far  as  the 
support  of  the  argument  is  concerned,  the 
proper  names  may  as  well  be  struck  from  the 
list. 


82  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

As  to  the  resemblance  between  individual 
events,  it  is  insignificant  and  often  trifling  in 
content;  for  example,  two  characters  are  alike 
in  that  each  is  in  the  wilderness — among 
orientals  a  natural  place  for  meditation;  one 
has  a  hairy  body,  the  other  wears  a  garment 
made  of  hair;  one  eats  grass,  the  other  eats 
grasshoppers;  and,  finally,  both  die — hardly 
a  remarkable  fact  when  there  is  no  resemblance 
in  the  circumstances  attending  their  deaths. 
But  what  of  the  alleged  "essentially  similar 
succession  of  events"?  This  is  not  true  of 
persons  with  whom  the  action  is  associated, 
for,  as  already  observed,  first  one  person  and 
then  another  is  introduced  without  regard  to 
orderly  procedure.  Moreover,  it  is  not  true 
that  the  action,  as  arranged  in  these  parallels, 
preserves  the  order  of  events  in  the  gospels. 
The  reference  to  Jesus'  coming  on  the  clouds 
(No.  9)  appears  in  the  gospels  not  at  the  begin- 
ning of  Jesus'  preaching  but  toward  the  close. 
The  connection  between  holding  a  boat  ready 
(No.  12)  and  entering  the  boat  (No.  13)  is  a 
misrepresentation  of  the  gospel  narrative. 
Xisuthros  enters  the  ship  that  he  prepares  and 
holds  in  readiness,  but  the  occasion  on  which 
a  boat  is  held  ready  for  Jesus  (Mark  3:9)  is 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        8.3 

entirely  different  from  that  on  which  he  enters 
a  boat  to  go  across  the  lake  (Mark  4:35),  and 
an  important  part  of  his  work  in  Galilee  is  done 
in  the  meantime.  It  is  exceptionally  irregular 
to  place  the  transfiguration  in  connection  with 
the  story  of  the  Gadarene  demoniacs  (Nos.  16- 
18).  According  to  the  gospel  order  a  wide  gap 
intervenes  in  which  belong  several  incidents 
mentioned  later  in  Jensen's  series.  Again,  the 
order  of  Mark  is  violated  when  Jesus'  conver- 
sation with  the  rich  young  ruler  is  placed  before 
Jesus'  reference  to  the  "loaves";  and  the 
order  of  Luke  suffers  when  the  story  of  the  rich 
young  ruler  is  put  before  the  parable  of  the 
rich  man  in  hades. 

The  alleged  points  of  likeness  are  even  more 
insignificant  when  one  views  them  in  their 
original  contexts.  It  is  only  by  a  generous 
omission  of  the  main  features  of  the  narrative 
that  a  theory  of  resemblance  can  be  made  even 
plausible.  To  take  a  single  illustration,  the 
gospel  story  of  Jesus'  baptism  and  temptation 
tells  of  an  individual  with  a  new  consciousness 
of  his  mission  in  life  reflecting  in  solitude  upon 
the  means  he  will  use  for  its  accomplishment. 
Though  he  is  hungry  and  has  power  to  turn 
stones  into  bread,  he  will  not,  for  God  is  more 


84  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

to  him  than  bread;  nor  will  he  ask  God  to 
show  him  favoritism  either  in  the  display  of 
unusual  acts  or  in  the  granting  of  earthly 
dominion.  These  are  all  inferior  motives — 
temptations  of  Satan — in  contrast  \vith  the 
ideal  of  perfect  submission  to  the  will  of  God. 
On  the  other  hand,  the  portion  of  the  Babylon- 
ian legend,  of  which  the  gospel  narrative  is 
supposed  to  be  a  reproduction,  pictures  Eabani 
as  a  wild  creature  sporting  with  the  beasts  and 
protecting  them  from  the  hunter.  The  latter 
complains  to  Gilgamesh,  the  ruler  of  the  city  of 
Erech,  who  promises  to  lure  Eabani  away  by 
means  of  a  prostitute.  The  plan  succeeds  and 
finally  Eabani  is  persuaded  to  enter  the  city 
and  live  in  friendship  with  Gilgamesh.  Later 
(lacunae  in  the  records  leave  the  exact  con- 
nection uncertain)  follows  the  so-called  tempta- 
tion parallel,  which,  however,  is  no  temptation 
at  all  but  a  speech  of  comfort  and  exhortation 
from  Shamash  the  sun-god.  Eabani  is  evidently 
restive  under  the  restraints  of  civilization,  and 
Shamash  says,  in  effect,  Why,  Eabani,  do 
you  long  for  the  harlot,  the  prostitute  ?  Have 
you  not  been  supplied  with  food  and  clothing 
at  the  court  of  Gilgamesh  who  will  allow 
you  to  sit  on  an  easy  seat  at  his  right  hand 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        85 

and  the  kings  of  the  earth  will  kiss  your 
feet  ?  And  when  the  dawn  of  morning  broke 
"the  words  of  Shamash,  the  mighty,  loosened 
the  bands  of  Eabani  and  his  furious  heart  came 
to  rest."  These  narratives  certainly  have  no 
essential  feature  in  common,  and  a  theory  of 
the  derivation  of  the  gospel  story  from  the 
Babylonian,  when  the  argument  rests  wholly 
on  internal  resemblance,  is  nothing  less  than 
absurd. 

Perhaps  the  greatest  weakness  of  this  whole 
theory  lies  in  its  omissions.  Large  sections  of 
both  the  gospel  history  and  the  Babylonian 
epic  have  to  be  suppressed  in  order  to  establish 
even  the  faintest  semblance  of  parallelism. 
Practically  all  of  Jesus'  teaching  is  overlooked 
and  his  career  taken  as  a  whole  has  no  counter- 
part in  the  epic.  There  is  no  character  there 
whose  religious  ideas,  whose  inner  experiences, 
whose  motives  and  impulses,  whose  attitude 
toward  men  and  God,  and  whose  relations  in 
life  have  the  least  resemblance  to  these  traits 
in  the  gospel  picture  of  Jesus.  In  no  respect 
does  Jensen 's  hypothesis,  as  a  theory  to  explain 
the  origin  of  the  gospels  without  reference  to  a 
historical  Jesus,  seem  to  have  any  validity. 

When   once    the    gospels   and    the    Pauline 


86  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

epistles  have  been  disposed  of,  the  remaining 
traditional  evidence  for  Jesus'  existence  is 
easily  dismissed  by  similar  methods.  The 
Book  of  Acts  readily  takes  its  place  with  the 
gospels  and  the  writings  of  Paul,  while  other 
New  Testament  books  are  said  either  to  know 
no  historical  Jesus,  or  to  contain  only  spurious 
references  to  him.  The  testimony  furnished 
by  the  Apostolic  Fathers  is  similarly  estimated 
as  of  no  account.  To  be  sure,  critical  historians 
quite  generally  admit  that  Josephus'  principal 
reference  to  Jesus  is  unauthentic.  The  very 
language  used — the  implication  of  Jesus '  divin- 
ity, reference  to  his  miracles,  recognition  of  his 
messiahship,  etc' — seems  to  mark  the  material 
as  a  Christian  interpolation.  It  is  also  true 
that  Roman  history  yields  no  important  data 
until  the  second  century  a.d.,  and  even  then 
the  evidence  is  of  a  meager  sort.  Suetonius 
and  Pliny  mention  Christians,  but  their  words 
shed  no  valuable  light  upon  the  problem  of 
Jesus'  actual  existence.  Tacitus,  however,  ex- 
plicitly states  that  the  Christians  of  Nero's 
day  traced  their  origin  to  one  named  Christ 

'  Ant.,  XVni,  iii,  3.  The  reference  to  James,  " ihe  brother  of 
Jesus,  the  so-called  Christ"  {Ant.,  XX,  ix,  i)  is  perhaps  less  open 
to  doubt.     See  below,  chap.  viii. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        87 

who  was  put  to  death  by  Pontius  Pilate 
in  Judea  during  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  This 
is  damaging  testimony  for  the  radical  position, 
but  its  force  is  avoided  in  the  usual  way :  either 
Tacitus  is  merely  reporting  from  hearsay  a 
fictitious  Christian  tradition,  or  the  paragraph 
is  a  "  Christian  "  interpolation.^  Neither  explan- 
ation is  satisfactory.  The  first  certainly  has 
no  value  until  the  Christian  tradition  has  been 
shown  to  be  fictitious;  and  as  for  the  second, 
the  very  language  of  the  paragraph,  which 
certainly  is  not  Christian  in  its  point  of  view,^ 
testifies  to  the  contrary. 

We  need  not  dwell  longer  upon  the  negative 
treatment  of  the  traditional  evidence  for  Jesus ' 

'  This  view  is  mainly  a  reiteration  of  the  doubts  of  Hochart, 
Etudes  ail  siijet  de  la  persecution  des  Chretiens  sous  Neron  (Paris, 
1885). 

^  Annals,  XV,  44,  cf.  especially  the  clause  describing  the  early 
spread  of  Christianity  after  Jesus'  death :  "  repressaque  in  praesens 
exitiabilis  superstitio  rursum  erumpebat  non  modo  per  Judaeam, 
originem  eius  mali,  sed  per  urbem  etiam,  quo  cuncta  undique 
atrocia  aut  pudenda  confiuunt  celebranturque."  Of  course  it 
may  be  urged  that  this  only  shows  good  historical  perspective  on 
the  part  of  the  artist  interpolator.  But  that  would  imply  that 
his  main  object  was  to  testify  to  the  bare  statement  of  Jesus' 
human  existence.  In  other  words,  it  must  be  assumed  that  the 
modern  radicals'  problem  was  the  supposed  interpolator's  prob- 
lem— a  manifest  begging  of  the  question.  It  is  evident  from  the 
passage  in  Josephus  that  the  Christian  interpolator's  interest  was 
"theological"  rather  than  "historical." 


88  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

historicity.  Occasional  monographs  on  special 
topics,  like  Drews 's  Petruslegende  and  W.  B. 
Smith's  "Judas  Iscariot,"'  illustrate  the  de- 
tailed application  of  the  negative  arguments, 
without,  however,  strengthening  our  estimate 
of  their  worth.  Taken  altogether,  they  sig- 
nally fail  in  their  proposed  disposition  of  the 
evidence  which  has  usually  been  regarded  as 
establishing  belief  in  the  historical  reality  of 
Jesus.  If  the  possibility  of  his  non-historicity 
is  to  be  entertained  at  all  it  must  be  brought 
about  by  reconstructing,  without  reference  to 
him,  so  strong  a  theory  of  Christian  origins  that 
the  traditional  view  will  pale  before  it  as  a 
lesser  light  in  the  presence  of  a  greater  luminary. 
Will  the  radicals'  constructive  hypothesis  stand 
this  test  ? 

'  Uibberl  Journal,  IX,  3  (April,  191 1),  529-44;   reproduced  in 
Ecce  Dens,  pp.  295  ff. 


CHAPTER  IV 

AN    ESTIMATE    OF    THE    NEGATIVE    ARGU- 
MENT:   ITS  PROPOSED  EXPLANATION 
OF  THE  ORIGIN  OF  CHRISTIANITY 

Most  proposed  reconstructions  of  Christian 
origins  make  the  idea  of  salvation  the  basal 
thought  of  the  new  religion.  The  validity  of 
this  assumption  can  scarcely  be  doubted. 
Christianity  from  the  beginning  was  unques- 
tionably and  pre-eminently  a  religion  of  salva- 
tion— a  salvation  which  is  primarily  of  divine 
origin  and  which  is  revealed  and  mediated 
in  the  career  of  a  Jesus  who  thereby  becomes 
the  unique  object  of  men's  faith  and  reverence. 
These  are  essential  items  in  Christian  thinking 
at  a  very  early  date. 

What  is  the  incentive  which  starts  this  new 
religion  on  its  way  ?  This  is  the  question  on 
which  opinion  divides.  Usually  it  has  been 
supposed  that  a  unique  historical  personality, 
known  in  tradition  as  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  made 
so  strong  an  impression  upon  men  that  a 
new  faith  reared  itself  about  his  person.  The 
critics  whose  views  we  are  investigating  pro- 
pose a  very  different  answer.     They  think  it 

89 


Qo  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

absurd  to  imagine  that  any  historical  individual 
could  be  given  so  elevated  a  position  in  the 
thought  of  men  with  whom  he  had  been  per- 
sonally associated.  His  supposed  historical 
form  is  merely  a  fanciful  portrait  giving  a  con- 
crete setting  to  the  abstract  notion  that  sal- 
vation is  the  outcome  of  the  deity's  own 
activity.  Thus  the  modern  radicals  hyposta- 
tize  the  salvation-idea,  making  it  of  itself  the 
creative  force  in  the  genesis  of  the  new  reli- 
gion. The  problem  of  Christianity's  origin  then 
becomes  the  question,  How  did  this  conception 
come  into  being,  and  where  and  when  are  its 
earliest  "Christian" manifestations  to  be  found  ? 
Bauer  and  Kalthoff,  it  will  be  remembered, 
looked  for  the  answer  to  these  questions  in  the 
Graeco-Roman  life  of  the  first  and  second 
centuries  a.d.  Their  solution  is  now  generally 
discarded  even  by  the  radicals,  who  admit  that 
in  the  third  century  Christianity  is  too  strongly 
entrenched  in  the  Roman  empire  to  bring  the 
date  of  its  origin  down  as  late  as  Bauer  and 
Kalthofif  proposed.  Moreover  the  Jewish  back- 
ground of  the  new  religion  is  too  evident  to 
permit  of  so  unconditional  a  transfer  of  its 
birthplace  to  heathen  soil.  The  solution  more 
commonly  offered  nowadays  finds  the  primitive 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        91 

Christians'  doctrine  of  salvation  to  be  less  a 
product  of  their  own  experience  and  more  a 
loan  from  the  contemporary  heathen  religions. 
It  is  pointed  out  that  belief  in  a  redeeming 
divinity  was  current  at  an  early  date  and  had 
found  expression  in  nature  myths,  in  the  tenets 
and  practices  of  secret  cults,  and  in  gnostic 
speculations.  Christianity  represents  the  re- 
sult of  a  borrowing  and  recasting  of  this  funda- 
mental conception.  The  beginnings  of  the 
process  can  no  longer  be  traced  with  certainty, 
but  they  are  assigned  with  confidence  to  pre- 
Christian  times.  This  evolution  went  on  both 
in  Palestine  and  in  Hellenistic  Judaism,  and 
attained  the  status  of  an  independent  religion 
at  about  the  time  Christianity  is  traditionally 
said  to  have  come  into  existence.  Such,  in 
outline,  is  the  radicals'  understanding  of  Chris- 
tianity's origin. 

If  the  kernel  of  Christianity,  the  salvation- 
idea,  was  thus  merely  a  notion  borrowed  from 
the  ancient  faiths,  why  did  it  create  for  itself 
a  new  divinity  in  the  person  of  Jesus,  and 
whence  did  it  derive  its  unique  vitality  ?  These 
would  seem  to  be  crucial  questions  for  the 
radicals'  constructive  hypothesis  to  answer. 

Bauer    and    Kalthoff    attempted    to    meet 


92  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

similar  problems  by  depicting  a  new  set  of 
human  experiences  as  the  source  of  Chris- 
tianity's new  thought  and  power.  A  new 
type  of  experience  called  forth  the  Jesus- 
portrait,  while  the  timely  elements  incorporated 
in  the  picture  assured  his  prestige.  The  later 
representatives  of  the  radical  school  do  not 
entirely  discard  this  line  of  thought,  though 
they  find  these  new  experiences  to  be  the  prod- 
uct of  a  different  set  of  surroundings.  The 
struggle  of  ideas  in  the  life  and  culture  of  the 
ancient  world  are  held  to  have  made  important 
contributions  to  nascent  Christianity.  Indeed, 
its  success  is  ascribed  in  no  small  degree  to  its 
fortunate  practice  of  gathering  to  itself  the  best 
elements  in  the  thought  of  the  time,  yet  funda- 
mental to  all  this  is  the  notion  of  a  redeeming 
savior-god,  Jesus.  He  is  not  the  product  of 
this  experience;  belief  in  him  was  anterior  to, 
and  was  the  norm  for  determining  the  interpre- 
tation of,  these  new  experiences,  according  to 
the  more  recent  theory  of  Christian  origins. 

But  if  Jesus'  career  is  mainly  a  replica,  so  to 
speak,  of  the  career  of  Adonis- Attis-etc,  why 
was  his  figure  created  ?  Why  posit  a  new  god 
to  embody  an  old  idea  ?  The  radicals  are  now- 
meeting  this  question  by  asserting  that  Jesus  is 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        93 

not  a  new  god.  Just  as  the  various  peoples  of 
the  Orient  were  wont  to  rebaptize  old  divinities 
with  new  or  reconstructed  attributes,  so  the 
Christian  Jesus  is  merely  a  rehabilitation  of 
Joshua,  who  is  said  to  be  originally  the  deified 
personification  of  the  salvation-concept  of  the 
Hebrews.  By  thus  admitting  a  substantial 
Jewish  basis  for  the  new  religion,  our  question 
as  to  why  Christian  thought  did  not  revolve 
about  the  person  of  some  heathen  deity  is 
answered. 

This  Jesus-divinity  accordingly  antedates  the 
Jesus  of  the  gospels,  and  supplants  him  as  the 
concrete  focus  about  which  that  type  of  think- 
ing, ultimately  denominated  "Christianity," 
first  gathers.  Here  our  second  question,  re- 
garding the  secret  of  the  new  religion's  vitality, 
also  would  seem  to  find  its  answer.  To  insure 
effectiveness  for  the  salvation-idea  it  must  be 
attached  to  the  career  of  a  person.  In  other 
words  it  must  be  dramatized,  even  though  the 
dramatis  persona  be  a  fictitious  character.  As 
evidence  of  this  demand  for  personification,  one 
may  point  to  the  figure  of  Adonis  among  the 
Syrians,  Attis  among  the  Phrygians,  the 
Persian  Mithra,  the  Babylonian  Tammuz, 
the    Egyptian    Osiris.     When    the    historical 


94  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Jesus,  who  is  usually  supposed  to  have  played 
this  role  for  Christians,  disappears,  his  place  is 
filled  by  this  fictitious  Joshua- Jesus  character 
whose  personality,  it  is  maintained,  supplies 
the  vitalizing  element  for  the  primitive  Chris- 
tian faith.  And  by  a  happy  combination,  in 
this  idealized  person,  of  the  best  elements  of 
Jemsh  as  well  as  heathen  thought,  he  thus 
becomes  a  uniquely  powerful  centrifugal  force 
not  only  in  the  genesis  but  also  in  the  expansion 
of  the  new  religion,  even  though  this  new  move- 
ment early  grew  to  be  a  competitor  in  the  same 
field  with  its  assumed  ancestral  kinsmen. 

Thus  this  pre-Christian  Jesus-divinity  is  a 
figure  of  great  importance  for  the  modern 
radicals.  It  is  true  that  not  all  writers  of  this 
school  place  equal  stress  upon  his  importance, 
for  they  do  not  all  give  equal  attention  to  the 
minuter  problems  pertaining  to  a  constructive 
theory  of  Christian  origins.  But  just  in  pro- 
portion as  they  overlook  him  do  they  fail  to 
make  any  serious  attempt  to  show  why  primi- 
tive Christianity  was  so  characteristically  a 
religion  of  faith  in  Jesus  the  Messiah,  while 
they  also  fail  to  supply  in  any  plausible  way  a 
concrete  initial  force  for  the  origin  of  the  new 
religion.     Nor  do  they  pro\'ide  any  vital  focus. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        95 

even  theoretically,  for  the  distinctive  thought 
of  early  Christianity. 

But  what  if  it  should  turn  out  upon  investiga- 
tion that  the  doctrine  of  a  pre-Christian  Jesus- 
divinity  never  had  any  vogue  in  ancient  times ! 
Can  the  historicity  of  this  belief  be  demon- 
strated ?  Or  is  the  doctrine  created  by  the 
modern  skeptics  in  their  search  for  a  personal 
substitute — and  most  of  them  are  now  taking 
their  problem  seriously  enough  to  realize  the 
need  of  this  personal  substitute — for  the 
alleged  Jesus  of  gospel  history  ?  We  shall  not 
pronounce  upon  this  question  without  a  careful 
examination  of  the  data.  Therefore  we  present 
\Adth  some  minuteness  the  supposed  evidence 
for  a  primitive  belief  in  a  pre-Christian  Jesus. 

To  begin  with,  there  is  no  gainsaying  the 
fact  that  the  word  "Jesus"  is  the  Greek 
equivalent  of  the  Hebrew  "Joshua."  But  this 
coincidence  cannot  of  itself  establish  any  con- 
nection between  these  individuals.  If  other 
men  did  not  bear  the  same  name  the  case  might 
be  different,  but  the  name  is  a  very  common 
one  among  the  Jews.  According  to  Weinel,^  it 
belongs  to  no  less  than  twenty  different  persons 
in  Josephus'  narrative  alone.     Proof  for  the 

'  Isi  das  "llberale"  Jesusbild  widerlegt?  p.  92. 


96  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

contention  that  Jesus  is  the  perpetuation  of  a 
Joshua-deity  needs  a  more  substantial  basis 
than  the  mere  identity  of  names.  As  a  further 
argument  it  is  urged,  by  Drews  for  example, 
that  Joshua  was  a  cult-god,  and  that  the  points 
of  resemblance  between  his  career  and  the  life 
of  Jesus,  portrayed  in  the  gospels,  establish 
the  identity  of  the  two  as  originally  a  Jewish 
divinity.  To  illustrate,  each  name  signifies 
"deliverer,"  "savior";  Joshua's  mother  (ac- 
cording to  an  Arabic  tradition!)  was  Miriam, 
and  the  mother  of  Jesus  was  Mary  (Miriam); 
Joshua  led  Israel  out  of  distress  in  the  wilder- 
ness into  the  land  of  promise  where  mUk  and 
honey  flowed,  that  is,  the  land  of  the  Milky 
Way  and  the  moon,  and  Jesus  also  led  his 
followers  into  the  heavenly  kingdom.  All 
this  is  in  turn  traceable  to  an  ancient  cult  of  the 
sun,  the  Greek  legend  of  Jason  forming  the 
connecting  link.  Jason  =  Joshua  =  Jesus.  Jesus 
with  his  twelve  disciples  passing  through 
Galilee  came  to  the  Passover  feast  at  Jerusalem, 
Joshua  with  his  twelve  helpers  passed  through 
the  Jordan  and  offered  the  Paschal  lamb  on  the 
other  shore,  Jason  with  his  twelve  companions 
went  after  the  golden  fleece  of  the  lamb,  and  all 
originally  was  the  myth  of  the  sun's  wandering 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        97 

through  the  twelve  signs  of  the  Zodiac.  Thus 
Joshua- Jesus  was  an  old  Ephraimitish  god  of 
the  sun  and  of  fertility,  worshiped  among  many 
Jewish  sects  as  the  hero-deliverer  of  ancient 
Israel  and  the  future  messianic  savior. 

This  is  a  bold  reconstruction,  but  it  is  fatally 
weak  at  some  essential  points.  When  one 
asks  for  explicit  evidence  of  a  Joshua-cult 
among  the  Jews  he  finds  no  answer.  Again,  is 
there  anywhere  in  Judaism  a  clear  intimation 
that  Joshua  was  the  hero  about  whom  messianic 
hopes  centered?  Here  also  evidence  fails. 
And  as  for  resemblances  between  the  Jesus  of 
the  gospels  and  this  alleged  cult-god,  Joshua, 
they  do  not  touch  the  main  features  in  the 
career  of  either  personage.  Take  even  the 
notion  of  the  death  and  resurrection  of  a  savior- 
god,  which  is  the  item  so  much  emphasized  by 
the  radicals,  and  there  is  no  parallel  in  this 
respect  between  Joshua  and  Jesus.  In  fact  the 
only  real  link  between  them  is  the  identity  of 
name,  a  feature  of  no  consequence  as  we  have 
already  observed,  when  one  recalls  the  fre- 
quency of  this  name  among  the  Jews. 

The  most  explicit  statement  that  Jesus 
belongs  to  pre-Christian  times  is  found  in 
Epiphanius,  and  is  corroborated  by  the  Baby- 


98  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Ionian  Talmud.  Epiphanius,  arguing  that  the 
high-priestly  office  in  the  church  is  in  the  line  of 
direct  succession  from  David/  sees  a  prophetic 
significance  in  such  scriptures  as  Ps.  132:11  f. 
and  Gen.  49 :  10,  which  affirm  that  David's  seed 
should  continue  to  occupy  his  throne,  and  the 
scepter  should  not  depart  from  Israel,  until 
that  final  successor  of  David,  in  whom  the 
people's  hopes  were  to  find  consummation, 
should  appear.  On  this  basis  Epiphanius  inter- 
prets history  as  follows:^ 

The  priesthood  in  the  holy  church  is  David's  throne 
and  kingly  seat,  for  the  Lord  joined  together  and  gave 
to  his  holy  church  both  the  kingly  and  the  high-priestly 
dignity,  transferring  to  it  the  never-failing  [/a^  StaXet- 
TTovra  ets  tov  aiwi/a]  thronc  of  David.  For  David's 
throne  endured  in  line  of  succession  until  the 
time  of  Christ  himself,  rulers  from  Judah  not  failing 
until  he  came  "to  whom  the  things  kept  in  reserve 
belonged.  And  he  was  the  expectation  of  the  gentiles." 
With  the  advent  of  the  Christ  the  rulers  in  line  of 
succession  from  Judah,  reigning  until  the  time  of  the 
Christ  himself,  ceased.  For  the  line  fell  away  and 
stopped  from  the  time  when  he  was  born  in  Bethlehem 
of  Judea  under  Alexander,  who  was  of  priestly  and 
royal  race.  From  Alexander  on  this  office  ceased — 
from  the  days  of  Alexander  and  Salina,  who  is  also 

•  Cf.  a  similar  interest  in  Justin,  Dial.,  LII,  3. 

»  Haer.,  XXIX,  3.     Cf.  LI,  22  fif. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument        99 

called  Alexandra,  to  the  days  of  Herod  the  king  and 
Augustus  the  Roman  emperor. 

After  remarking  upon  the  fact  that  Alexander 
was  both  king  and  high  priest,  Epiphanius 
continues : 

Then  afterward  a  foreign  king,  Herod,  and  no  longer 
those  who  were  of  the  family  of  David,  put  on  the 
crown;  while  in  Christ  the  kingly  seat  passed  over  to 
the  church,  the  kingly  dignity  being  transferred  from 
the  fleshly  house  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem;  and  the 
throne  is  set  up  in  the  holy  church  of  God  forever, 
having  a  double  dignity  because  of  both  its  kingly  and 
its  high-priestly  character. 

In  this  argument  Epiphanius'  chief  interest 
clearly  is  dogmatical  rather  than  historical. 
Thinking,  as  he  does,  that  Alexander  Jannaeus 
(104-78  B.C.)  was  the  last  of  the  Jewish  kings 
to  combine  in  one  person  the  offices  of  both 
king  and  high  priest,  he  is  led  by  his  Old  Testa- 
ment proof-texts  to  assume  that  Jesus  was  the 
immediate  successor  of  Alexander.  Then  Jesus 
must  have  been  born  during  Alexander's  reign.' 
This  is  the  logic  of  dogma.  But  with  magnifi- 
cent inconsistency  Epiphanius  returns  to  his- 
tory and  speaks  of  a  gap  extending  from  the 
time  of  Alexander  to  the  time  of  Herod.     Why 

'  Cf.  the  anachronism  of  Justin,  A poL,  I,  31,  making  Herod  and 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus  contemporary. 


100  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

mention  an  interim  whose  ulterior  limit  is 
fixed  by  the  names  of  Herod  and  Augustus? 
Doubtless  because  this  limit  marks  the  actual 
appearance  of  Jesus  upon  the  scene,  as  Epipha- 
nius  is  well  aware.  Indeed  he  is  very  emphatic 
in  affirming  that  Jesus  was  born  in  the  forty- 
second  year  of  Augustus'  reign.'  By  forcing 
Epiphanius  to  read  us  a  new  lesson  in  history, 
when  he  is  primarily  concerned  to  prove  the 
kingly  and  high-priestly  inheritance  of  the 
church  in  an  unbroken  succession  from  David, 
we  do  him  a  great  injustice.  We  should  remem- 
ber that  the  major  premise  of  his  thinking 
is  that  no  word  of  Scripture  fails. ^  It  is  not 
at  all  improbable  that  he  was  well  aware  of 
the  contradiction  involved  in  placing  Christ's 
birth  in  the  time  of  Alexander — his  lan- 
guage does  not  imply  that  he  held  any  doc- 
trine about  the  "hiding"  of  the  Messiah — but 
he  took  refuge  in  the  pious  reflection  that 
Scripture  might  be  enigmatical  but  could  not 
be  erroneous.^  Yet  his  inconsistency  ought 
not  to  cause  serious  trouble  for  moderns,  who 

'  Ilaer.,  LI,  22.    Epiphanius  apparently  reckons  the  beginning 
of  Augustus'  reign  from  Julius  Caesar's  death  in  44  B.C. 

^oiSf/ila  yap  X^^ts  ttjs  ayla^  rov  deou  ypatpijs  SiairiTrrei . 

3oy  yap  dirifiapri  rt  twv  aTrb  t^s  aylai  ypa<prj%  aiviyfj-dTiov. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      loi 

have  discarded  the  ancient  custom  of  using 
assumed  Old  Testament  predictions  as  source 
materials  for  the  writing  of  later  history. 
Epiphanius  clearly  was  trapped  by  the  logic 
of  his  dogmatic  into  suggesting  that  Jesus  was 
born  under  Alexander. 

The  Babylonian  Talmud  twice  narrates  the 
story  of  a  certain  Jeshu  who  lived  in  the  days 
of  King  Jannaeus,  and  who  is  said  to  have 
practiced  magic,  and  corrupted  and  misled 
Israel.'  The  Christian  Jesus  is  evidently  meant, 
since  "Jeshu"  is  a  common  Talmudic  desig- 
nation for  him.  But  the  historical  reliability 
of  the  story  is  very  doubtful.  It  so  happens 
that  the  older  Palestinian  Talmud  contains  a 
parallel  to  this  story  ,^  in  which  there  is  no  men- 
tion of  "Jeshu."  An  undesignated  disciple 
of  Jehuda  ben  Tabai  stands  in  his  place. 
Evidently  the  Babylonian  form  of  the  story  has 
been  worked  up  in  the  interest  of  Jewish  polemic 
against  Christianity.  And  since  most  of  the 
Talmudic  references  to  Jesus  seem  to  have  been 
inspired  by  some  item  of  Christian  teaching, 

^  Sanhedrin  107b  and  Sola  47a.  For  the  full  narrative  see 
Strack,  Jesus,  die  Hdretiker  und  die  Christen  nach  den  dltesten 
jiidischen  Angaben  (Leipzig,  1910),  pp.  10  f. 

'  Hag.  2,  2;   cf.  Strack,  op.  cil.,  pp.  9  f. 


I02  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

it  is  barely  possible  that  just  the  sort  of  argu- 
ment Epiphanius  used  to  prove  that  the  church 
was  in  the  line  of  direct  succession  from  David, 
thus  connecting  Jesus  with  Alexander,  is  behind 
this  similar  Talmudic  tradition. 

Epiphanius  makes  two  further  statements 
which  are  sometimes  thought  to  point  to  a  pre- 
Christian  Jesus.  He  says  that  there  were 
Nazarees  (or  Nasarees)'  before  Christ,  and  that 
Philo  once  wrote  a  treatise  describing  the  early 
Christian  community  in  Eg^pt.^  If  there  was 
a  well  established  Christian  church  in  Egypt  in 
Philo 's  day,  and  if  the  Nazarees  were  in  exist- 
ence in  pre-Christian  times,  are  we  not  to  infer 
that  Christianity  was  known  in  the  first  century 
B.C.  ?  Epiphanius  himself  says  that  Christians 
were  first  known  as  Nazorees,  so  that  the 
similarity  of  names  suggests  a  close  relation 
for  the  two  bodies.  Moreover  Philo,  who  was 
a  man  of  advanced  age  in  40  a.d.  when  he 
headed  the  Jewish  embassy  to  Rome,  can  hardly 

'  He  uses  the  form  Nafapafot  in  Haer.,  XVIII,  1-3,  and  XIX, 
S,  but  'Natrapaioi  in  XXIX,  6.  Cf.  Schwen  in  Protesiantische 
Monatshefte,  XIV  (1910),  208-13  and  Nestle  in  ibid.,  349  f. 
On  the  genesis  of  Epiphanius'  phraseology,  cf.  Schmidtke,  Neue 
Fragmenle  mid  Untersiichungen  zu  den  Judenchrisllichcn  Evange- 
lien  (Leipzig,  1911),  pp.  90  ff.;  cf.  Bousset  in  Theologische 
Rundschau,  XIV  (1911),  373  fif. 

'  Ilaer.,  XXIX,  5. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      103 

have  seen  Christianity,  on  the  traditional  view 
of  its  origin,  so  firmly  established  in  Egypt 
as  is  implied  in  the  treatise  to  which  Epiphanius 
refers.  Hence  we  are  to  look  for  the  beginnings 
of  the  new  religion  in  the  first  century  B.C.,  so 
the  argument  runs. 

On  examining  the  data  more  closely  it  very 
soon  becomes  evident  that  Epiphanius  has  no 
thought  of  connecting  Christianity  with  the 
Jewish  Nazarite  heresy.  He  places  the  latter's 
origin  before  the  Christian  era  and  classes  it 
along  with  the  Hemerobaptists,  etc.  On  the 
other  hand,  he  describes  Christian  heretics 
whom  he  designates  Nazorees  [Na^w/aaiot], 
distinguishing  with  perfect  clearness  between 
them  and  the  Jewish  non-Christian  Nazarees. 
The  difference  is  not  merely  one  of  name;  they 
have  very  distinct  characteristics.  The  Naza- 
rees are  distinguished  for  the  unorthodoxy  of 
their  Jewish  beliefs  and  practices ;  the  Nazorees 
are  pre-eminently  rigid  Jews  who  have  added 
to  their  Judaism  a  smattering  of  Christian 
belief.  Hence  they  derive  their  name  from 
Jesus  the  Nazorite,  the  name  by  which  the 
Christians  were  called  before  they  received  the 
designation  "Christians"  at  Antioch.  Epipha- 
nius' thought  is  often  very  hazy,  but  on  this 


I04  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

subject  he  is  perfectly  clear.  There  was  among 
the  Jews  even  before  the  Christian  era  a  heresy 
of  the  Nazarees;  then  came  the  Christian 
movement,  which  at  first  was  known  as  the 
sect  of  the  Nazorees  and  which  finds  its  proper 
continuation,  as  Epiphanius  takes  great  pains 
to  prove,  in  the  catholic  church;  and  finally 
there  was  a  third  class  who  took  upon  them- 
selves the  primitive  Christian  name  of  Nazorees 
but  who  adhered  so  rigidly  to  Judaism  that 
Epiphanius  curtly  remarks,  "they  are  Jews  and 
nothing  else.'" 

Whether  there  ever  was  such  an  array  of 
sects  bearing  a  similar  name — and  Epiphanius 
adds  yet  another,  the  Nazirees,  represented  by 
Samson  in  the  Old  Testament  and  later  by 
John  the  Baptist^ — may  be  questioned.  Judg- 
ing from  the  same  writer's  skill  in  splitting  the 
original  Essenes  up  into  Jessees,  Ossenes,  and 
Ossees,  we  may  wonder  whether  he  did  not 
occasionally  invent  a  name,  in  his  ardor  to 
defend  Nicene  orthodoxy  against  every  "hydra- 
headed  serpent  of  error"  that  could  ever  pos- 
sibly have  existed  whether  commonly  known  or 
not.     But   one   thing   at   least   is   clear.     His 

■  Ilaer.,  XXIX,  7. 
^  Ibid.,  XXIX,  5. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      105 

statements  about  Nazarees,  Nasarees,  Nazorees, 
and  Nazirees  involve  no  ambiguity  whatever 
as  to  the  date  of  Christianity's  origin.  The 
traditional  date  is  the  only  one  suggested. 
Those  who  argue  for  a  pre-Christian  Jesus  can 
find  nothing  for  their  purpose  here  except  the 
bare  mention  of  the  early  existence  of  a  Jewish 
Nazarite  heresy.  To  prove  the  reliability  of 
this  statement,  and  to  show  further  that  the 
sect  was  "Christian"  in  character,  is  another 
problem.  Epiphanius  supplies  no  argument 
for  this.  He  does  not  even  so  describe  the 
Nazarees  as  to  suggest  characteristics  which 
show  them  to  have  been  precursors  of  the 
Christian  movement. 

On  the  other  hand,  Epiphanius  clearly  states 
that  there  was  in  Egypt  a  Christian  community 
about  which  Philo  wrote.  If  this  is  so,  then 
in  all  probability  it  existed  before,  or  at  least 
contemporaneously  with,  the  Jesus  of  the 
gospels.  Here  it  is  a  question  of  tracing  and 
testing  Epiphanius'  sources  of  information. 
He  was  writing  in  the  latter  part  of  the  fourth 
century,  and  we  may  suppose  that  he  availed 
himself  of  the  works  of  Philo,  Josephus,  and 
Eusebius.  He  may  indeed  have  had  other 
sources  of  which  we  now  have  no  knowledge, 


io6  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

but  on  the  basis  of  these  alone  some  of  his 
riddles  can  be  unraveled.^ 

Philo,  in  his  tractate  Quod  omnis  prohus  liber, 
describes  a  sect  of  Jews  called  Essees  ['  Eo-cratot] 
because  of  their  saintly  [ocrto?]  character. 
These  are  readily  recognized  as  the  Essenes 
['Ecrcn7i^ot]  mentioned  by  Josephus.^  Their 
characteristics  are  too  well  known  to  need 
further  comment.^     In  another  treatise''  Philo 

'  The  character  of  Epiphanius'  sources  of  information  and  the 
historical  value  of  his  statements  are  puzzling  problems  which 
need  reworking.  Cf.  the  still  valuable  works  of  Lipsius,  Ziir 
Qmllenkritik  des  Epiphanius  (Wien,  1865)  and  Hilgenfeld,  Die 
Ketzergeschichte  des  Urchrislcntiims  (Leipzig,  1884).  Tradition 
represents  him  to  have  been  a  man  of  great  learning  who  had 
traveled  much  and  read  widely,  yet  it  is  evident  that  he  was 
swayed  by  a  tremendous  zeal  for  orthodoxy. 

'  Philo  had  no  scruples  in  deriving  the  name  of  a  Jewish  sect 
from  a  Greek  source.  But  the  variation  of  spelling  seems  to 
point  rather  to  an  Aramaic  original,  'I'^DH  and  X'^CH,  which  are 
plural  forms  from  i^On. 

•5  See  Schiirer,  Geschichte  des  jiidischen  Volkes  im  Zeilalter  Jesii 
Chrisli  (Leipzig,  1904^,  II,  561-80.  English  tr.,  History  of  the 
Jewish  People  in  the  Time  of  Jesus  Christ,  New  York,  1891,  Div. 
II,  Vol.  II,  188-218);  also  article  "Essenes"  in  the  Bible  diction- 
aries. 

4  The  authorship  of  De  vita  content plativa,  so  long  debated, 
seems  finally  to  have  been  decided  in  Philo's  favor.  See  F.  C. 
Conybeare,  Philo  about  the  Contemplative  Life  (Oxford,  1895); 
Massebieau,  "Le  trait6  de  la  vie  contemplative  et  la  question 
des  th6rapeutes,"  Revue  de  Vhistoire  des  religions,  XVI  (1887), 
170-98  and  284-319;  Wendland,  "Die  Therapeuten"  in  Jahrbiichcr 
filr  classische  Philologie,  XXII  (Suppl.),  1896,  692-770. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      107 

describes  a  sect  somewhat  akin  to  the  Essenes, 
but  less  widely  diffused  among  the  Jews  and  more 
distinctly  monastic  in  its  type  of  life.  Its  prin- 
cipal colony  was  on  an  eminence  on  the  southern 
shore  of  Lake  Mareotis  near  Alexandria. 
The  members  of  the  society  called  themselves 
Therapeutes  [OepanevTai,],  either  meaning  "heal- 
ers" of  men's  souls,  or  "servants"  of  God.  In 
Eusebius'  day,  when  the  Christians  had  come 
to  prize  highly  the  monastic  ideal,  this  early 
sect  seemed  to  be  the  natural  precursor  of 
Eg}^tian  encratic  Christian  orders  of  the 
late  third  century  a.d.  Accordingly  it  was 
assumed  that  at  this  early  date  Christianity 
had  been  planted  in  Egypt  through  the  labors 
of  John  Mark.  And  to  account  for  Philo's 
friendliness  toward  the  movement — for  he 
wrote  of  the  Therapeutes  in  terms  of  evident 
approval — it  was  suggested  that  at  the  time  he 
conducted  the  embassy  to  Rome  he  had  met 
and  been  favorably  impressed  by  Peter.^ 

When  these  materials  pass  under  the  magic 
touch  of  Epiphanius,  what  is  the  result?  In 
the  first  place,  the  Essees  (or  Essenes)  of  Philo 
and  Josephus  disappear.     Epiphanius'  Essenes, 

'  Eusebius,  Hist.  Eccl.,  II,  16  f.  According  to  later  tradition 
Philo  became  a  convert  under  Peter's  preaching  (Photius,  Cod. 
105). 


io8  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

who  later  become  Ossenes  and  still  later  Ossees, 
are  one  of  four  subdivisions  of  the  Samaritans. 
It  may  seem  very  strange  that  he  should  leave 
a  lacuna  in  his  array  of  heretics  by  removing 
the  Essenes  from  among  the  Jews.  But  does 
he  leave  any  vacancy  by  this  removal  ?  Has  he 
not  filled  the  gap  with  his  pre-Christian  Jewish 
heresy  of  the  Nazarees,  of  which  we  have 
already  spoken  ?  In  describing  them'  he  made 
it  one  of  their  chief  characteristics  that  they 
rejected  the  system  of  animal  sacrifice  connected 
with  the  Temple;  and  this  was  a  notable  tenet 
of  the  Essenes,  as  described  by  Philo  and 
Josephus.  The  name  "Nazarees"  may  have 
been  suggested  by  the  Old  Testament  Nazirees, 
whom  Epiphanius  is  so  careful  to  distinguish 
from  the  Christian  heresy  of  the  Nazorees. 
Thus  the  Essenes,  who  straightway  become 
Jessees,  Ossenes,  etc.,  are  reserved  for  a  yet 
more  important  service.  We  may  pass  by 
the  Ossenes-Ossees  (was  the  spelling  suggested 
by  Philo's  derivation  of  the  name  from  ocrto?  ?) 
without  further  comment.  Our  interest  is  with 
the  Jessees. 

Epiphanius  adopts   the  Eusebian   tradition 
that   Christianity  was  planted   in   Egjpt   by 

'  Hacr.,  XVIII,  1-3. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      109 

Mark/  and  that  Philo's  Therapeutes  were  the 
primitive  Christians.  But  the  title  of  Philo's 
treatise  was,  according  to  Epiphanius,  Con- 
cerning lessees  [irepl  'lecrcratwt'].  In  the  open- 
ing paragraph  of  De  vita  contemplativa  Philo 
speaks  of  the  Therapeutes  in  a  way  to  indi- 
cate that  he  regarded  them  as  a  type  of  Essees 
(Essenes).  They  were  the  Essees  of  the  con- 
templative life  in  contrast  with  the  Essees  of 
the  practical  life.  So  it  would  not  have  been 
wholly  incongruous  to  refer  to  his  tractate  as 
Concerning  Essees  [Trepl  'Eo-cratwv].  But  whence 
came  Concerning  lessees?^  Epiphanius  intro- 
duces the  subject  of  the  Jessees  as  a  part 
of  his  argument  for  the  continuation  of  the 
Davidic  throne  in  the  catholic  church.  Speak- 
ing of  the  early  followers  of  Jesus  before 
they  were  first  called  Christians  at  Antioch, 
he  says: 

They  were  called  Jessees  after  Jesse,  I  think.  Since 
David  was  descended  from  Jesse,  and  Mary  was  in  the 
direct  line  of  succession  from  the  seed  of  David,  the 
Divine  Scriptures  according  to  the  Old  Testament  are 
fulfilled,  the  Lord  having  said  to  David,  "of  the  fruit 
of  thy  loins  I  will  place  one  upon  thy  throne." 

'ZToer.,  XXIX,  5;  LI,  6. 

'  The  regular  litle  is  Tepi  ^iov  6ewpr]riKov,  or  iK^rai  ij  irepl 
aperCiv  rb  5'. 


no  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

After  carrying  through  his  argument  along  this 
line,  Epiphanius  comes  back  to  the  word 
"  Jessees"  and  admits  the  opportunist  character 
of  his  previous  explanation.  He  still  thinks 
it  may  have  come  from  "Jesse,"  yet  it  may  have 
come  from  "Jesus,"  "for  Jesus  in  the  Hebrew 
dialect  signifies  Therapeute  [OepaTrevTijs],  i.e., 
physician  and  savior."'  Why  are  we  here  intro- 
duced to  the  Therapeutes  ?  E\ddently  because 
the  objective  basis  of  the  author's  thought  in 
this  connection  is  Philo's  Therapeutes,  coupled 
with  the  Eusebian  tradition  that  these  were 
primitive  Christians.  Epiphanius  wishes  to  find 
them  a  more  appropriate  name,  and  this  he  has 
done  to  his  satisfaction  in  the  word  Jessees. 
It  answers  his  purpose  in  several  directions. 
He  can  check  it  oft'  theologically  with  Jesse, 
etymologically  (through  Therapeutes)  ^^ath 
Jesus,  analogically  with  Essees  (the  general 
class  of  which  Philo  speaks),  and  historically 
with  Therapeutes  (the  specific  term  used  by 
Philo). 

Thus  Epiphanius,  as  a  witness  for  the  pre- 
Christian  date  of  Jesus  and  of  Christianity,  is 
a  distinct  failure.  We  have  dwelt  thus  at 
length  upon  this  subject  because  his  assertion 

'  See  ^acr.,  XXIX,  1,4. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      iii 

that  Jesus  was  born  in  the  time  of  Alexander 
Jannaeus,  his  mention  of  pre-Christian  Naza- 
rees,  and  his  suggestion  of  a  connection  be- 
tween "Jesus"  and  " Therapeutes "  seem  to  us 
to  represent  the  most  substantial  data  which  the 
radicals  have  to  offer  in  support  of  their 
position. 

There  are  however  a  few  other  items  of 
evidence  which  they  regard  as  giving  further 
positive  substantiation  to  their  hypothesis. 
Among  the  most  explicit  of  these  are  two 
passages  from  a  papyrus  fragment  containing 
formulas  of  exorcism.  They  run  as  follows:^ 
opKit^oi  ere  Kara  tov  fxapTrapKovpiO  ■  vacraapc  • 
....  (1.  1549)  and  opKit^u)  ae  Kara  6eov 
TO)v  Fj/SpaLcju  l-qcrov?-  laySa  •  lar)  •  .  .  .  .  (11. 
3019  f,).  The  significant  word  in  the  first 
formula  is  vacraapi,  since  it  is  thought  to  be  a 
reference  to  the  "Nazarite."  But  the  import 
of  the  second  passage  is  much  more  certain. 
Here  Jesus  is  clearly  mentioned:  "I  adjure 
thee  by  the  god  of  the  Hebrews,  Jesus,  Jaba, 
Jae,  etc."  If  the  formula  is  pre-Christian  it 
would  seem  to  be  positive  evidence  for  the 

'  The  fragment  is  at  Paris  in  the  BibUotheque  Nationale  (No. 
574,  Supplement  grec).  It  has  been  edited  by  Wessely,  Denk- 
schriften  der  philosophisch-historischen  Classe  der  Kaiserlichen 
Akademie  der  Wissenschajkn  zu  Wien  (1888,  XXXVI,  27-208). 


112  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

existence  of  an  early  Hebrew  deity  by  the 
name  of  "Jesus"  or  even  "Jesus  the  Nazarite." 
But  the  manuscript  from  which  all  this  is 
taken  is  conceded  to  belong  between  300  and 
400  A.D.  This  fact  of  itself  puts  the  document 
out  of  court  as  first-hand  testimony  for  customs 
in  the  first  century  B.C.,  especially  when  we 
recall  how  easily  magical  formulas  gathered  to 
themselves  all  sorts  of  accretions  quite  regard- 
less of  rhyme  or  reason.  The  word  "Jesus" 
is  here  evidently  a  pagan  supplement  made  by 
a  copyist  who  did  not  distinguish  between  Jews 
and  Christians.' 

Another  piece  of  alleged  evidence  for  a  pre- 
Christian  Jesus  is  taken  from  Hippolytus. 
This  church  father,  who  it  will  be  recalled  wrote 
in  the  early  third  century  a.d.,  cites  a  hymn  used 
by  the  gnostic  sect  of  the  Naassenes  in  w^hich 
Jesus'    name    occurs.    He    is    represented    as 

'  Cf.  Dcissmann,  Licht  vom  Osten  (Tubingen,  iqoS^),  p.  186, 
n.  14.  The  heathen  scribe  may  have  been  betrayed  into  the 
error  of  calling  Jesus  "God  of  the  Hebrews"  by  the  custom 
among  Jewish  magicians  in  the  Diaspora  of  employing  names 
borrowed  from  various  sources.  And  that  there  was,  indeed, 
some  disposition  among  Jews  in  the  rabbinical  period  to  use  the 
name  of  the  Christian  Jesus  in  magic,  is  seen  in  Jacob  of  Kephar 
Sama's  proposal  to  heal  R.  Eleazar  of  snake  bite  "in  the  name  of 
Joshua  ben  Pandera."  Against  objections  raised  by  R.  Ishmael, 
R.  Eleazar  contended  that  the  act  could  be  justified,  but  he  died 
before  the  proof  was  completed.     (Tosephta,  HitUin,  11:21-23). 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument       113 

asking  the  Father's  permission  to  visit  the 
earth  in  order  to  teach  men  the  secrets  of 
"gnosis"  and  thus  to  reheve  their  distressed 
condition,'  Both  Smith  and  Drews  use  this 
in  support  of  their  position,  but  without  making 
any  serious  attempt  to  prove  that  the  passage 
originated  before  the  Christian  era.  Smith 
excuses  himself  from  discussing  the  date,  while 
Drews  says  "to  all  appearances  pre-Christian," 
and  cites  a  Babylonian  parallel  to  the  hymn, 
which,  however,  may  only  signify  that  Baby- 
lonian and  Christian  materials  were  used  in  its 
composition.  When  we  turn  to  Hippolytus' 
own  testimony  we  find  no  hint  that  the  Chris- 
tian elements  in  the  Naassene  system  are 
"pre-Christian."  In  fact  he  explicitly  affirms 
that  the  heretics  themselves  cited  "James  the 
brother  of  the  Lord"  as  the  source  of  their 
teaching.^  Whatever  the  antiquity  of  the 
sect  itself  may  be,  as  described  by  Hippolytus 
it  is  a  heretical  Christian  sect,  and  the  supposi- 
tion that  the  reference  to  Jesus  is  a  pre-Christian 
feature  lacks  support. 

Two    other   points    emphasized   by   W.    B. 
Smith  as  having  special  evidential  value  are  the 

'  Hippolytus,  Rejulalion,  v,  5 . 
'  Ibid.,  V,  2. 


114  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

statement  in  Acts  18:25  that  Apollos  was 
preaching  "the  things  concerning  Jesus"  while 
he  as  yet  knew  only  the  baptism  of  John,  and 
the  use  of  "Nazarite"  as  an  appellation  for 
Jesus.  From  the  former  it  is  inferred  that  a 
"doctrine"  concerning  Jesus,  sufficiently  de- 
finite and  vital  to  form  the  background  of  a 
vigorous  propaganda,  existed  in  pre-Christian 
times.  But  this  can  be  maintained  only  by  a 
very  liberal  reading  between  the  lines  in  the 
narrative  of  Acts.  The  natural  meaning  of  the 
passage  is  quite  different.  The  writer  of  Acts, 
perhaps  more  from  necessity  than  from  choice, 
has  left  us  in  the  dark  regarding  many  phases 
of  early  Christianity.  One  of  these  obscure 
items  is  the  early  practice  of  baptism.  Even 
Paul  has  very  little  to  say  upon  this  subject, 
yet  he  seems  to  have  regarded  the  ordinance  as 
typifying,  if  not  effecting  in  some  magical  way, 
the  believer's  entrance  "into  Christ."  Con- 
sequently it  was  naturally  attended  by  the 
bestowal  of  the  Holy  Spirit.'  Another  idea 
early  connected  mth  the  ordinance  is  the  notion 
of  repentance.  While  both  repentance  and  the 
giving  of  the  Spirit  are  connected  with  the  rite 
in  Acts,  chap.   2,  it  is  not  improbable  that 

'  Cf.  I  Cor.  12:13. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      115 

repentance  baptism,  such  as  John  the  Baptist 
and  his  followers  preached,  was  the  notion 
adopted  by  the  first  Christians.  The  "mysti- 
cal union"  interpretation,  accompanied  by  the 
doctrine  of  endowment  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  may 
have  been  a  Pauline  contribution  to  the  history 
of  dogma.  On  this  understanding  of  the  situa- 
tion all  becomes  clear  in  Acts  18 :  25  ff .  Apollos 
had  been  first  introduced  to  Christianity  by 
non-Pauline  Christians.  Later  he  was  "Pauli- 
nized" — not  christianized — by  Priscilla  and 
Aquila. 

Smith's  second  point  rests  upon  an  argument 
from  silence.  No  mention  of  the  village  of 
Nazareth,  either  before  or  in  the  early  part  of 
the  Christian  era,  has  been  found  anywhere 
except  in  Christian  writings.  Hence  it  is  con- 
cluded that  this  place-name  has  been  derived 
simply  from  the  phrase  "Jesus  the  Nazarite." 
Jesus  was  not,  as  is  commonly  supposed,  called 
the  "Nazarite"  because  his  home  was  in  Naza- 
reth; an  imaginary  Nazareth  was  created  be- 
cause Jesus  was  called  the  "Nazarite."  The 
real  genesis  of  the  title  must  therefore  be  sought 
in  the  Hebrew  root  N-S-R,  meaning  to  watch, 
protect,  etc.  The  Nazarite  then  is  a  primitive 
cult-god  worshiped  as  the  watcher,  protector, 


ii6  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

savior.  It  will  be  observed  that  this  reversal 
of  the  ordinary  interpretation  of  the  data  rests 
on  the  assumption  that  the  village  of  Nazareth 
never  existed/  a  conclusion  which  in  turn  is 
derived  solely  from  the  silence  of  non-Christian 
writers.  But  this  silence  about  a  small  Galilean 
town  can  hardly  be  so  very  significant.  Recal- 
ling the  apologetic  difficulties  caused  by  the 
statement  that  Jesus'  home  was  Nazareth,  when 
christological  speculation  felt  compelled  to 
connect  him  mth  David's  city,  Bethlehem,  it 
seems  quite  unlikely  that  Christians  would  have 
invented,  or  at  least  have  failed  to  challenge, 
so  unprofitable  a  fiction. 

A  few  similar  "proofs,"  as  presented  by 
Drews,  may  be  noted  in  passing.  Evidence  for 
a  long  history  of  the  name  Jesus  is  seen  in  the 
magical  power  attached  to  the  name  already 
"at  the  beginning  of  the  Christian  propaganda," 
"an  entirely  inconceivable  fact  if  its  bearer  had 
been  a  mere  man."  But  the  ancients  who  used 
magic  were  not  given  to  critical  skepticism  in 
such  matters.  It  would  be  quite  sufhcient  for 
them  to  know  that  Jesus'  followers  believed 
him  now  to  occupy  a  place  of  authority  in  the 

■  Cf.  the  view  of  Cheyne  {Encyclopaedia  Biblica,  art.  "Naza- 
reth") and  of  Mead,  that  Nazareth  =  Galilee,  a  theory  which  does 
not  serve  Smith's  purpose. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      117 

divine  realm.  Moreover  the  date  and  extent 
of  the  magical  use  of  Jesus'  name  is  a  more 
doubtful  problem  than  is  here  assumed  to  be 
the  case.'  Another  point  is  made  of  the  type 
of  Christology  in  the  Book  of  Revelation  and  in 
the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  The 
"Jesus"  in  these  books  is  thought  to  have 
"nothing  in  common  with  the  Christian  Jesus" 
and  to  be  "in  all  probability"  taken  over  from  a 
pre-Christian  cult.  But  we  have  previously 
been  told  that  the  Christian  Jesus  also  came 
from  this  source.  Then  why  the  variation  in 
type?  Not  only  does  the  assertion  that  they 
have  nothing  in  common  seem  ill-advised,  but 
the  differences  may  easily  be  accounted  for  by 
conditions  within  the  history  of  Christianity. 

The  above  arguments  may  be  designated 
"direct"  evidence  for  the  existence  of  Jesus  as  a 
pre-Christian  cult-god.  The  effort  to  find  a 
place  for  him  among  the  Jews  results  in  a  few 
more  arguments  of  a  supplementary  character. 
It  is  urged  that  the  idea  of  a  suffering  Messiah 

'  Paul  gives  a  hint  of  this  practice  in  his  day  (Phil.  2:g  i.),  and 
Acts,  chap.  3,  shows  the  early  believers  defending  their  right  so 
to  use  Jesus'  name.  But  how  extensively  this  was  done  at  an 
early  date  is  not  known.  It  was  natural  enough  for  the  custom 
to  arise,  in  view  of  contemporary  ideas  regarding  the  magical 
significance  of  a  name.  Cf.  Hcitmiiller,  "I?n  Namen  Jesu" 
(Gottingen,  1903,  pp.  132-222). 


1 18  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

is  not  distinctively  Christian  but  was  earlier  a 
Jewish  doctrine,  having  been  taken  over  from 
the  heathen  notion  of  a  suffering,  dying,  and 
rising  god.  To  be  sure,  nature  myths  personi- 
fying the  death  of  winter  and  the  re\ival  to 
new  life  in  the  spring  are  common  in  the  heathen 
mythologies  of  Asia  Minor.  Acquaintance  with 
these  on  the  part  of  the  Jews  is  possible  and 
even  probable,  but  evidence  that  these  notions 
formed  an  important  part  in  the  construction 
of  their  messianic  hope  is  scanty.  Certainly 
a  mere  collection  of  isolated  points  suggesting 
similarities  of  ideas  is  not  sufficient  proof  of 
borrowing,  particularly  when  the  Jewish  litera- 
ture shows  so  little  to  confirm  the  supposition. 
Isaiah,  chap.  53,  is  sometimes  cited  in  this  con- 
nection. But  granting  that  its  thought  may  be 
of  heathen  origin  and  its  significance  mes- 
sianic'— both  doubtful  points — it  is  still  true 
that  official  Judaism  did  not  interpret  the 
suffering  servant  of  Isaiah  messianically ;  nor 
did  early  Christianity,  which  ex  hypothesi 
represents  the  unofficial  side  of  Jewish  thought, 
make  extensive  use  of  the  passage.  Paul, 
whom  Drews  will  concede  to  be  a  historical 

'  So    Gressmann,    Der    Ur sprung    der    israeliiisch-jiidischen 
Eschalologie  (Gottingen,  1906),  pp.  302-53- 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      119 

personality  of  primal  importance  for  the  new 
movement,  employs  the  idea  of  the  offered 
victim  in  the  Jewish  sacrificial  system  rather 
than  that  of  the  "suffering  servant."  The 
gospels  show  that  Jesus'  personal  associates 
were  utterly  unprepared  for  his  death,  and  Paul 
says  that  the  early  Christian  preaching  about 
a  dying  Messiah  was  a  stumbling  block  to  Jews 
and  foolishness  to  Greeks.  This  is  a  very 
strange  situation  if  the  notion  was  originally 
heathen  and  had  been  early  adopted  by  Juda- 
ism. The  primitive  Christians  had  too  much 
difficulty  in  defending  their  belief  in  a  suffering 
Messiah  to  allow  us  to  suppose  that  they 
found  the  idea  current  in  Judaism,  or  even  that 
the  heathen  notion  of  a  dying  and  rising 
divinity  was  recognized  as  having  any  essential 
similarity  with  their  preaching  about  "Jesus 
Christ  and  him  crucified." 

The  attempt  to  locate  a  pre-Christian  Jesus 
in  orthodox  Judaism  is  implicitly  admitted  by 
the  radicals  to  be  hopeless.  Hence  they  resort 
to  the  hypothesis  of  secret  sects  whose  worship, 
ritual,  and  dogma  centeied  about  this  Jesus-god 
of  the  cult.  That  there  were  divers  sects  within 
Judaism  in  pre-Christian  times  is  a  fairly  well 
established   fact.     Philo,   Josephus,    the   New 


1 20  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Testament,  the  early  Fathers,  and  the  Talmud, 
all  support,  more  or  less  strongly,  this  opinion. 
We  hear  of  Samaritans,  Pharisees,  Herodians, 
Essenes,  Therapeutes,  to  say  nothing  of  groups 
of  followers  collected  from  time  to  time  by 
messianic  pretenders,  and  the  possible  pre- 
Christian  origin  of  various  heresies  mentioned 
at  a  later  date  in  the  Patristic  literature  and 
the  Talmud.  From  the  time  of  Antiochus 
Epiphanes  down  to  about  the  close  of  the  first 
century  a.d.,  the  Jews  were  passing  through 
turbulent  experiences,  when  factions  mthin 
and  forces  from  without  were  strongly  affecting 
their  life  and  thought.  It  is  not  at  all  impos- 
sible that  by  the  end  of  the  first  century  a.d. 
there  may  have  been  in  circulation  a  body  of 
literature  roughly  answering  to  the  seventy 
books  of  II  Esd.  14:46. 

But  what  value  have  these  facts  for  the  idea 
of  a  pre-Christian  Jesus?  Is  he  mentioned 
anywhere  in  connection  with  these  sects,  or  in 
any  of  the  non-canonical  Jewish  writings  that 
have  come  to  us  from  this  period?  He  cer- 
tainly is  not.  In  what  we  know  of  the  tenets 
and  practices  of  these  sects  is  there  anything 
to  indicate  his  existence?  Here,  too,  specific 
evidence  for  an  affirmative  answer  fails.     It  is 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      121 

true  that  our  knowledge  of  these  movements  is 
relatively  meager  and  mostly  secondary.  Yet 
such  descriptions  as  are  given  by  Philo  and 
Josephus  are  usually  thought  to  be  reliable, 
and  nothing  appears  here  to  indicate  that  the 
worship  of  a  special  cult-god  characterized  any 
of  the  sects  or  parties  then  known.  A  recently 
discovered  document  published  by  Schechter 
is  of  great  importance.'  It  gives  us  new  in- 
formation about  one  of  these  obscure  Jewish 
movements,  but  there  is  not  the  slightest 
intimation  that  these  sectaries  worshiped  a 
special  cult-god.  They  looked  back  with  rever- 
ence to  a  "teacher  of  righteousness"  who  was 
the  founder  of  their  society,  and  awaited  the 
time  when  "the  teacher  of  righteousness  shall 
arise  in  the  last  days"  and  "the  anointed  shall 
arise  from  Israel  and  Aaron."  Whether  the 
teacher  yet  to  appear  was  the  same  who  had 
died  is  disputed,^  but  at  any  rate  this  individual 

'  Documenls  of  Jewish  Sectaries,  I,  Fragments  of  a  Zadokite 
Work.  Edited  with  Translation,  Introduction,  and  Notes  by 
Schechter  (Cambridge  University  Press,  igio). 

'  The  editor  of  the  document  thinks  a  resurrection  is  impHed; 
G.  F.  Moore  is  of  the  contrary  opinion  ("The  Covenanters  of 
Damascus;  a  Hitherto  Unknown  Jewish  Sect"  in  the  Harvard 
Theological  Review,  IV  [191 1],  330-77).  Cf.  Kohler,  "Dositheus, 
the  Samaritan  Heresiarch,  etc.,"  in  the  American  Journal  of 
Theology,  XV  (191 1),  404-35,  who  sees  here  an  example  of  the 
Samaritan  doctrine  of  the  ^Messiah's  disappearing  and  reappearing 
at  will. 


122  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

is  no  dying  and  rising  Adonis-like  sa\'ior-deity. 
Jehovah  the  God  of  Israel  is  the  sole  object  of 
worship.  So  in  general  the  thought-content  of 
Jewish  parties  or  heresies,  as  far  as  known  at 
present,  did  not  concern  itself  with  the  worship 
of  any  special  deities,  but  with  the  best  means 
of  rendering  acceptable  service  to  the  common 
god  of  their  fathers.  Thus  the  sectaries  were 
often  rigid  separatists,  but  they  were  not 
worshipers  of  other  deities. 

The  extremes  to  which  the  radicals  are  driven 
in  their  endeavor  to  make  room  for  the  pre- 
Christian  Jesus  of  their  hypothesis  is  illustrated 
in  Drews's  assertions  regarding  secret  cults  in 
Judaism.  He  says  that  not  only  have  the 
world-views  of  Babylonians,  Persians,  and 
Greeks  influenced  Judaism  polytheistically, 
but  from  the  beginning,  side  by  side  with  the 
priestly  and  officially  accentuated  view  of  the 
One  God,  went  a  faith  in  other  gods,  a  faith 
which  not  only  received  constantly  new  nour- 
ishment from  foreign  influences  but,  above  all, 
which  seemed  to  be  fostered  in  the  secret  sects. 
This  seems  to  be  a  very  injudicious  statement 
of  the  situation.  That  the  main  line  of  Judaism 
contained  syncretistic  elements  is  now  generally 
recognized,  and  the  early  and  continued  activity 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      123 

of  separatist  parties  of  various  types  cannot  be 
disputed,  but  the  perpetual  and  widespread 
existence  of  secret  polytheistic  cults  among 
the  Jews  is  not  supported  by  any  substantial 
evidence. 

Jesus'  name  can  be  connected  with  these  sects, 
which  are  alleged  to  have  worshiped  him  as  a 
cult-god,  only  by  a  precarious  process  of  ety- 
mologizing, a  method  by  which  one  may  usually 
argue  much  and  prove  nothing.  Already  we 
have  noted  the  futility  of  the  argument  based 
on  the  equation,  Joshua = Jesus.  As  a  sample 
of  the  way  he  is  discovered  to  have  been  the 
special  object  of  reverence  among  the  Essenes 
and  Therapeutes,  we  are  reminded  that  Philo 
indicates  a  kinship  between  the  Essenes,  whose 
name  means  "pious,"  "God-fearing,"  and  the 
Therapeutes,  meaning  "physicians."  Also 
"Jesus"  signifies  in  Hebrew  "helper,"  "de- 
liverer." Then  the  argument  proceeds:  "The 
Therapeutes  and  Essenes  looked  upon  them- 
selves as  physicians" — did  the  Essenes? — 
"especially  as  physicians  of  souls,  accordingly 
it  is  not  at  all  improbable  that  they  worshiped 
their  cult-god  under  this  name,"  that  is,  the 
name  Jesus.  Can  an  argument  of  this  sort 
establish  even  a  shadow  of  likelihood,  not  to 


1 24  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

mention  probabilities  ?  We  are  also  told  that 
the  pre-Christian  Nazarees  mentioned  by 
Epiphanius  will  unquestionably  have  worshiped 
the  "Nazarite"  whose  attributes  as  protector, 
savior  (Jesus),  have  already  been  derived  from 
the  Hebrew  root  N-S-R.  In  addition  to  this 
point  of  Smith's,  Drews  notes  that  the  Hebrew 
word  netzer,  the  "shoot  out  of  Jesse"  mentioned 
in  Isaiah,  is  the  symbol  of  the  "Redeemer"  in 
his  character  of  a  deity  of  vegetation  and  life, 
"an  idea  which  also  may  have  made  itself  felt 
in  the  name  of  the  Nazarees."  The  futility  of 
arguments  of  this  sort  is  self-evident,  even 
without  noting  their  occasional  absurdity  from 
a  purely  linguistic  point  of  view.^ 

When  the  doctrine  of  a  pre-Christian  Jesus  is 
applied  more  specifically  to  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity, the  inadequacy  of  the  hjpothesis  be- 
comes still  more  evident.  As  a  concrete 
instance,  we  may  take  Drews's  application  of 

'  We  can  imagine  that  the  Zadokite  sectaries,  to  use  Schechter's 
designation,  by  the  application  of  a  similar  argument  maj^  also 
be  made  worshipers  of  the  pre-Christian  Jesus.  For  do  we  not 
find  in  their  writings  the  statement  that  God  "made  bud  for 
Israel  and  Aaron  a  root  of  a  plant  to  inherit  his  lands"  ?  To  be 
sure,  the  Hebrew  for  root  is  shoresh,  but  the  thought  is  very 
similar  to  Isa.  60:21,  where  netzer  occurs.  So  we  have  the  pro- 
gression shoresh,  netzer,  "Nazarite,"  the  cult-god  Jesus.  Ridicu- 
lous indeed,  but  hardly  impossible,  we  should  think,  for  one 
sufifering  from  chronic  "etymologitis." 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      125 

the  theory  to  explain  the  Christianity  of  Paul. 
In  Tarsus,  where  heathen  religious  notions 
flourished,  Paul  had  heard  of  a  Jewish  sect-god, 
Jesus.  Paul's  sympathies,  however,  were  with 
official  Judaism,  and  he  studied  to  become  a 
teacher  of  the  law.  The  gospel  of  "Jesus," 
which  was  originally  "nothing  other  than  a 
Judaized  and  spiritualized  Adonis-cult,"  was 
first  preached  by  men  of  Cyprus  and  Cyrene, 
and  Paul  opposed  this  preaching  because  the 
law  pronounced  a  curse  upon  everyone  who 
hung  upon  a  tree.  Then  suddenly  there  came 
over  him  a  great  enlightenment.  The  dying 
Adonis  became  a  self-sacrificing  god,  surrender- 
ing his  life  for  the  world.  This  was  "the 
moment  of  Christianity's  birth  as  a  religion  of 
Paul." 

This  attempted  derivation  of  Pauline  Chris- 
tianity from  the  cult  of  Adonis  fails  not  only 
because  it  is  too  highly  fanciful,  but  because  of 
its  serious  omissions.  On  the  one  hand,  im- 
portant features  in  Adonis'  career  find  no  place 
in  Paul's  picture  of  Jesus — for  example,  the 
youthful  god  slain  by  the  wild  boar,  and  the 
mourning  of  his  goddess  sweetheart.  But  more 
significant  is  the  failure  of  the  Adonis  legend 
to    suggest    some    of    the    most    specific    and 


1 26  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

important  items  in  Paul's  thought  of  Jesus,  such 
as  his  human  ancestry  and  family  connections/ 
his  association  with  disciples,^  his  righteous 
life^  lived  in  worldly  poverty,"  his  self-sacrificing 
service,^  his  heavenly  exaltation  as  a  reward 
for  obedience,^  the  circumstances  of  his  death,^ 
the  awakening  of  faith  through  his  appearances,* 
and  finally  the  stress  Paul  puts  on  the  Messiah's 
future  coming,  and  his  present  significance  for 
the  spiritual  life  of  believers. 

It  is  also  doubtful  whether  the  idea  of  a 
suffering  deity  is  so  genetically  vital  to  Paul's 
thought  as  Drews  assumes.  Is  it  the  God-man 
Jesus  or  the  Man-god  Jesus  that  stands  as  the 
corner-stone  of  the  Pauline  gospel  ?  We  must 
not  forget  that  for  Paul  there  is  but  one 
supreme  deity,  the  activity  of  whose  ^vill  is 
manifest  in  all  things.  Although  Jesus  was  a 
pre-existent  being  who  voluntarily  surrendered 
his  heavenly  position,  still  it  is  God  who  sent 
him  to  earth,  God  raised  him  from  the  dead  and 

'Rom.  1:3;   I  Cor.  9:5;   Gal.  1:19;  4:4. 

'I  Cor.  15:5;  Gal.  1:17  f.,  etc. 

3  Rom.  5:18  f.;  II  Cor.  5:21. 

4 II  Cor.  8:9;  cf.  Phil.  2:5  ff. 

s  Rom.  15:3;  II  Cor.  10:1. 

'  Rom.  1:4;  Phil.  2:9  f. 

'I  Cor.  11:23;  3.nd  numerous  references  to  his  crucifixion. 

8  1  Cor.  5:5-8;  Gal.  1:12,  16. 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      127 

delegates  to  him  the  conduct  of  the  judgment, 
and  to  God  at  last  he  submits  all  things  in  order 
that  God  may  be  all  in  all.  It  is  true  that  Paul 
speculates  about  the  activity  of  Jesus  in  the 
angelic  realm  in  subordination  to  God,  but  the 
significance  of  this  activity  in  man's  behalf  lies 
not  in  the  abstract  thought  of  an  incarnated 
redeeming  divinity  but  in  an  actual  human  life 
terminated  by  a  violent  death.  Not  some 
hypothesis  about  his  becoming  a  man,  but  the 
way  he  lived  and  the  outcome  of  his  career  as  a 
man,  his  success  in  contrast  with  the  first  man's 
failures,  his  restoration  of  the  ideal  of  a  perfect 
man,  these  are  the  phases  of  his  activity  which 
make  him  truly  the  savior  of  men.  His  resur- 
rection and  his  present  activity  in  the  spiritual 
life  of  the  community  are  the  further  assurance 
of  his  saving  power.  In  all  this  the  thought  of 
pre-existence  is  never  the  stress  point.  The 
heavenly  man,  the  earthly  Jesus,  the  exalted 
Christ  (Messiah),  the  heavenly  Lord,  are  all 
features  in  Paul's  system;  but  the  point  of 
supreme  importance  for  his  gospel,  that  which 
he  makes  the  central  item  of  his  preaching,  is 
the  transition  from  the  second  to  the  third  stage 
of  this  progression,  from  "Jesus"  to  "Christ 
and  him  crucified." 


128  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

In  like  manner  the  application  of  the  pre- 
Christian  Jesus-theory  to  the  gospels  fails  to 
take  account  of  the  actual  situation  there 
depicted.  Again  using  Drews  as  an  illustra- 
tion, the  point  of  departure  for  his  treatment 
of  the  gospel  material  is  a  citation  from  Wrede 
to  the  effect  that  Mark  was  an  apologetic 
treatise  aiming  to  prove  to  gentile  readers  that 
Jesus  was  the  Son  of  God.  Even  granting  this, 
it  is  not  the  same  as  saying  that  Mark  was 
primarily  interested  in  showing  that  the  Son 
of  God  was  Jesus.  Nor  is  Drews  justified  in 
his  conclusion  that  "in  the  gospels  we  have  to 
do  not  with  a  deified  man  but  rather  with  an 
anthropomorphized  god. ' '  This  assertion  needs 
qualifications.  It  does  not  truly  represent  the 
order  in  which  gospel  thought  proceeds,  nor 
the  situation  in  which  the  early  Christian 
apologists  found  themselves. 

What  troubled  the  first  missionaries  of  the 
new  religion  was  not  the  reluctance  of  their 
hearers  to  believe  that  a  god  had  become  a  man, 
but  their  hesitation  about  believing  that  a 
man,  especially  an  obscure  Jew  who  had  been 
ignorniniously  put  to  death,  was  really  the  Son 
of  God.  The  oldest  type  of  synoptic  tradition 
does  not  connect  either  Jesus'  activity  or  his 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      129 

teaching  with  a  deified  past.  At  baptism  he 
first  appears  as  God's  son,  and  his  Hfe  history 
is  interpreted  constantly  with  reference  to  his 
future  rather  than  to  his  past.  His  teachings 
are  not  of  any  angeKc  world  out  of  which  he 
has  come,  but  of  the  earthly  life  to  be  lived  in 
spiritual  fellowship  with  God,  and  the  future 
welfare  of  himself  and  his  followers.  Belief 
in  the  resurrection  and  exaltation  of  Jesus  is  the 
starting-point  for  theological  elaboration  in 
gospel  tradition,  and  the  interpreter's  task  is 
seen  to  be  not  the  problem  of  reading  the  divine 
out  of  Jesus'  career  but  of  so  narrating  the  story 
of  his  activity  that  it  might  fittingly  relate 
itself  to  the  later  faith  in  him  as  the  exalted 
Messiah.  Only  in  the  later  stages  of  the  tradi- 
tion, as  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  and  in  the  nativity 
stories  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  does  the  process 
of  elevation  reach  back  as  far  as  the  pre-earthly 
side  of  Jesus'  career. 

Consequently  the  idea  of  a  pre-Christian 
cult-god,  as  the  starting-point  for  the  gospel 
religion,  does  not  answer  the  requirements  of 
the  situation.  A  similar  objection  holds  against 
Kalthoff's  supposition  that  Jesus  is  merely  the 
community's  ideal  personified  to  save  it  from 
perishing.     On   the   contrary,   gospel   thought 


130  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

moves  in  the  opposite  direction.  It  proceeds 
from  the  person  to  his  ideaHzation  rather  than 
from  the  ideal  to  its  personification.  The 
extent  to  which  the  evangeHsts'  narratives  are 
historical  is  another  problem,  but  unquestion- 
ably this  literary  activity  moves  out  from  the 
idea  of  a  historical  Jesus  who  has  become  the 
heavenly  Christ,  and  so  is  the  object  of  unique 
devotion  and  reverence. 

When  all  the  evidence  brought  against 
Jesus'  historicity  is  surveyed  it  is  found  to 
contain  no  elements  of  strength.  All  theories 
that  would  explain  the  rise  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment literature  by  making  it  a  purely  fictitious 
product  fail,  and  the  arguments  for  a  pre- 
Christian  Jesus  are  found  to  lack  any  substan- 
tial basis.  One  of  the  serious  defects  of  the 
negative  procedure  is  the  way  in  which  the 
great  bulk  of  testimony  for  the  origin  of  Chris- 
tianity is  unceremoniously  set  aside  in  favor 
of  a  hypothetical  reconstruction  based  upon 
obscure  and  isolated  points.  This  results  in  a 
promiscuous  forcing  of  all  data  into  line  with 
an  otherwise  unverified  theory  as  to  how  the 
new  religion  might  possibly  have  arisen.  So 
it  has  happened  that  no  advocate  of  the  negative 
position,  at  least  none  since  Bauer,  has  con- 


An  Estimate  of  the  Negative  Argument      131 

cerned  himself  primarily  and  comprehensively 
with  the  principal  data  in  the  field,  showing  for 
example  that  the  letters  of  Paul  and  the 
primitive  gospel  tradition  are  wholly  spurious. 
A  theory  of  Christianity's  origin  has  been 
foisted  upon  our  attention  before  the  way  has 
been  cleared  for  it  in  a  field  already  occupied. 
Moreover  when  the  credentials  of  the  nega- 
tive hypothesis,  and  its  application  to  Chris- 
tian origins,  are  minutely  examined,  their 
unsubstantial  and  fallacious  character  becomes 
evident.  The  chief  strength  of  the  whole 
negative  position  is  the  intangibility  of  the 
data  on  which  it  rests.  It  is  built  upon  a  few 
isolated  points  whose  chief  argumentative 
value  lies  in  the  fact  that  in  their  present  setting 
there  is  some  uncertainty  as  to  their  exact 
meaning.  Thus  they  lend  themselves  to  liberal 
hypothesizing.  We  have  already  observed  that 
the  detailed  items  advanced  as  evidence  for  a 
pre-Christian  Jesus  are  of  this  character.  But 
on  closer  inspection  not  only  do  we  find  no 
well-attested  references  to  him  but  there  is  also 
no  appropriate  place  for  him  in  the  history 
of  the  period  where  he  is  supposed  to  belong. 
The  argument  for  his  existence  may  sometimes 
have  a  semblance  of  plausibility  but  this  is 


132  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

because  the  data  offered  in  its  support  are 
obscure  either  as  to  context  or  content,  so  that 
generous  reading  between  the  Hnes,  liberal 
etymologizing,  and  the  like,  become  the  main 
stock  in  trade  for  these  theorists.  They  can,  to 
be  sure,  claim  a  certain  degree  of  immunity 
from  the  weapons  of  adverse  criticism.  This 
fact,  however,  is  not  to  be  taken,  as  they  would 
sometimes  have  us  believe,  as  attesting  the 
strength  of  their  theory.  It  is  just  because  of 
the  intangible  character  of  its  premises  that 
their  argument  cannot  easily  be  submitted  to 
detailed  scientific  rebuttal.  As  Weiss  remarks, 
it  is  the  most  difficult  task  in  the  world  to  prove 
to  nonsense  that  it  is  nonsense. 


CHAPTER  V 

PRAGMATIC  PHASES  OF  PRIMITIVE 
TRADITION 

The  argument  against  Jesus'  historicity  has 
already  been  found  to  lack  adequate  support. 
Unless  its  advocates  can  offer  more  valid 
reasons  for  their  skepticism,  and  can  make  the 
constructive  presentation  of  their  hypothesis 
agree  more  closely  with  all  the  data  in  the  field 
of  primitive  Christian  history,  they  can  scarcely 
hope  to  find  a  substantial  following.  At  pres- 
ent the  prospects  of  success  for  the  radical 
contention  seem  to  be  slight,  and  no  necessity 
is  generally  felt  even  for  asking.  Did  a  his- 
torical Jesus  ever  live  ? 

Yet  when  this  question  is  asked  can  an 
affirmative  answer  be  formulated  sufficiently 
strong  to  prove,  beyond  the  possibility  of  a 
reasonable  doubt,  that  Jesus  was  a  genuinely 
historical  character?  It  may  not  be  inappro- 
priate to  set  forth  some  specific  reasons  for 
believing  in  his  historicity,  especially  since 
those  who  adhere  to  the  opposite  view  some- 
times claim  that  they  are  not  obliged  to  justify 

^33 


134  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

their  skepticism  unless  a  valid  argument  for 
historicity  is  advanced.  We  shall  not  be  con- 
cerned to  determine  the  full  amount  of  reliable 
information  about  Jesus  now  available;  we 
confine  attention  to  the  single  issue,  Did  Jesus 
ever  live  ? 

The  radicals  will  not  allow  us  to  point  as 
proof  to  the  uniformity  of  Christian  opinion 
today,  or  merely  to  cite  the  Christian  tradition 
of  the  past.  They  insist,  and  quite  rightly,  that 
not  the  Jesus  of  history  but  rather  the  risen  and 
heavenly  Christ  of  faith  has  held  the  central 
position  in  believers'  thought  from  the  earliest 
times  down  to  the  present.  It  is  pointed  out 
that  this  state  of  affairs  existed  even  as  early 
as  the  time  of  Paul,  who  had  relatively  little 
to  say  of  an  earthly  Jesus  in  comparison  with 
his  emphasis  upon  the  heaven-exalted  indi\ddual 
who  was  soon  to  come  in  judgment.  To  be 
sure,  it  may  be  difficult  to  imagine  that  the 
Christ  of  faith  could  in  the  first  instance  have 
come  to  occupy  the  place  he  did  without  the 
reality  of  an  earthly  Jesus,  but  to  assume  this 
connection  as  a  presupposition  would  be  to  beg 
the  question  at  issue.  In  fact,  those  who  deny 
Jesus'  historicity  maintain  that  it  is  impos- 
sible to  believe  in  the  reality  of  his  earthly 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition    135 

career  just  because  of  the  very  exalted  place 
he  occupied  in  the  primitive  theology.  They 
say  that  memory  of  his  human  limitations  would 
have  prevented  that  idealization  of  him  which 
is  found  in  early  tradition.  Consequently  we 
are  asked  to  show  that  early  Christian  specu- 
lation has  room  for  the  actual  career  of  an 
earthly  Jesus. 

On  general  grounds  we  may  note  that  the 
deification  of  men  was  not  unusual  in  this 
period  of  the  world's  history.  And  if  it  is 
objected  that  Jesus  had  done  nothing  to 
prompt  belief  in  him  as  a  heaven-exalted  hero 
— that  he  was  no  world-conquering  Alexander 
— one  may  say  that  his  heroic  suffering  was  the 
pathway  by  which  he  ascended  to  heavenly 
honors.  If  a-priori  considerations  are  to  be 
urged,  is  it  not  quite  impossible  to  imagine  a 
company  of  believers  declaring  themselves  to 
have  been  companions  of  a  fictitious  person  and 
reverencing  him  even  to  the  extent  of  sacrificing 
their  lives  for  his  cause  ?  There  are  two  factors 
in  this  situation  which  distinguish  it  from  the 
mythical  anthropomorphizing  of  deities  in 
general.  The  order  of  progress,  which  has 
already  been  seen  to  show  itself  in  early 
Christian  interpretation,  is  from  Jesus  the  man 


136  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

to  Christ  the  heavenly  Lord ;  and  emphasis  falls 
upon  the  proximity  of  the  events.  It  is  true 
that  no  New  Testament  book  may  be  held  to 
give  us  the  exact  views  of  a  personal  follower 
of  Jesus,  yet  the  great  bulk  of  early  tradition 
gives  the  reader  the  vivid  impression  that  the 
unique  phenomena  behind  the  New  Testament 
faith,  and  the  person  whom  it  reverences,  are 
not  projected  into  some  remote  past  but  have 
appeared  within  the  memory  of  men  still  living. 
On  the  other  hand  we  have  to  admit  that  the 
New  Testament  may  contain  features  created 
by  the  pious  fancy  of  the  early  believers,  hence 
a  request  for  more  specific  proof  that  the 
earthly  figure  of  Jesus  is  not  a  mere  product 
of  this  interest  in  interpretation  is  not  out  of 
place. 

The  obscurity  of  Christianity's  beginnings 
makes  our  task  a  difficult  one.  While  there  is 
ample  evidence  that  the  new  religion  was  in 
existence  about  the  close  of  the  first  century 
A.D.,  there  is  no  contemporary  account  of  its 
beginnings,  much  less  such  an  account  of  the 
life  of  its  alleged  founder.  He  left  no  written 
records  of  his  teaching,  and  none  of  the  New 
Testament  writings  can  be  assigned  with  abso- 
lute certainty  to  the  pen  of  a  personal  disciple 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     137 

of  Jesus.  At  first  the  adherents  of  the  new 
faith  apparently  had  no  idea  of  any  prolonged 
propaganda,  or  of  a  time  after  the  first  genera- 
tion of  Christians  should  have  passed  away 
when  written  documents  would  be  needed  to 
supply  information  about  the  early  days  of  the 
faith.  It  is  now  well  known  that  the  literature 
which  purports  to  narrate  the  story  of  Jesus' 
career  does  not,  in  its  present  form,  come  from 
the  first  generation  of  Christians.  Mark, 
though  the  earliest  gospel,  was  written  at  a 
time  when  the  author  would  be  compelled  to 
thread  his  way  back  to  Jesus  through  from 
thirty  to  forty  years  of  development  in  the 
thought  and  life  of  the  church,  and  that  too  in 
a  period  when  tradition  was  in  its  most  fluid 
state.  The  other  evangelists  were  under  a 
similar  necessity,  the  difiiculty  being  perhaps 
greater  in  their  case  since  they  were  chrono- 
logically farther  removed  from  the  original 
events.  Paul's  letters  are  the  earliest  extant 
Christian  writings,  yet  they  were  not  composed 
with  any  deliberate  purpose  of  instructing 
posterity  on  questions  of  history,  or  even  of 
expounding  the  content  of  contemporary  think- 
ing. They  aim  rather  to  meet  special  exigencies 
among  the  churches.     Hence  the  modern  his- 


138  The  Historicily  oj  Jesus 

torian  must  rely  upon  secondary  sources  in  his 
effort  to  recover  the  Jesus  of  history. 

It  is  true  that  the  gospels  do  distinctly 
emphasize  the  career  of  Jesus,  but  their  portrait 
is  soon  discovered  to  be  colored  by  the  interests 
of  developing  dogma.  This  necessitates  a 
critical  handling  of  the  material  in  order  to 
distinguish  earlier  from  later  phases  of  tradition. 
Mark  has  been  found  to  be  the  earliest  of  the 
gospels,  while  still  earlier  written  materials,  in 
addition  to  Mark,  are  thought  to  have  been 
used  by  the  writers  of  Matthew  and  Luke. 
The  Fourth  Gospel  is  now  believed  to  have 
originated  last,  and  to  have  been  written  more 
especially  as  an  interpretative  account  of  Jesus' 
personality.  Thus  our  sources  of  informa- 
tion, in  inverse  chronological  order,  are  John, 
Matthew,  Luke  (or  Luke,  Matthew),  Mark, 
and  the  non-Markaji  sections  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  which  have  so  strong  a  verbal  resemblance 
that  the  use  of  earlier  common-source  material 
may  be  safely  assumed.  With  these  generally 
accepted  results  of  modern  gospel  criticism 
before  us  it  might  seem  an  easy  matter  to  dis- 
criminate, at  least  in  the  main  outlines,  between 
later  accretions  and  the  primitive  historical 
data.     Will  not  the  earliest  document  be  the 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition    139 

purest  historically,  while  the  other  documents 
will  be  estimated  according  to  chronological 
position  ? 

This  method  is  undoubtedly  valuable  as 
far  as  it  goes,  but  it  does  not  meet  the  ultimate 
needs  of  historical  inquiry,  inasmuch  as  the 
oldest  source  may  quite  likely  be  itself  influ- 
enced by  theological  interests.  The  idea  that 
there  was  a  primitive  period  in  the  history  of 
Christianity  when  doctrine  was  "pure,"  the 
recovery  of  which  would  give  one  the  quin- 
tessence of  Christianity,  is  now  treated  quite 
generally  as  a  fiction;  but  is  it  not  a  kindred 
error  to  imagine  an  ideal  period  in  the  primitive 
tradition  when  only  Simon-pure  historical  nar- 
rative about  Jesus'  life  and  teaching  was  in 
circulation?  The  earliest  writer  may  indeed 
have  had  the  best  opportunity  to  learn  the 
actual  facts,  and  so  his  narrative  will  naturally 
be  prized  the  most  highly  by  historians,  but 
what  if  the  situation  in  which  he  found  himself 
demanded  an  "interpretation"  of  the  facts! 
This  demand  must  have  become  evident  almost 
at  the  beginning  of  the  new  community's  life, 
and  those  who  advocated  the  new  faith  must 
have  early  felt  the  desirability  of  rising  to  this 
occasion.    Otherwise  there  would  have  been 


I40  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

little  incentive  for  them  to  speak  and  still  less 
likelihood  that  their  words  would  have  been 
remembered. 

It  does  not  follow  that  the  early  apologetic 
had  no  basis  in  fact,  but  we  must  recognize  that 
the  point  of  view  from  which  the  framers  of 
the  tradition  presented  their  material,  as  well 
as  the  controlling  interest  in  its  selection  and 
elaboration,  were  largely  determined  by  their 
own  historical  situation.  And  so  far  as  our 
evangelists  are  concerned,  it  is  evident  that 
they  were  by  no  means  solely  interested  in 
writing  the  bare  outlines  of  history.  Their 
aim  was  to  make  the  history  they  related 
count  in  favor  of  the  t}q3e  of  faith  which  they 
preached,  and  which  appealed  to  them  as  the 
true  interpretation  of  the  data.  What  the 
church  found  itself  thinking  and  doing,  as  the 
result  of  the  circumstances  which  molded  its 
early  life,  this  its  theologians,  in  all  good  con- 
science, naturally  endeavored  to  find  warrant 
for  in  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus.  Had  the 
evangelists  failed  to  appreciate  this  demand  of 
their  times  there  would  have  been  but  slight 
occasion  for  them  to  write  anything,  and  still 
less  probability  that  what  they  wrote  would  be 
preserved.     We  must  grant  at  the  outset  that 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     141 

our  present  sources  of  information  about  Jesus 
are  literary  products  framed  subsequently  to 
his  career,  and  that  they  may  indeed  have  been 
shaped  to  favor  pragmatic  interests.  There- 
fore in  using  these  documents  today  for  purely 
historical  purposes  it  is  desirable  to  recognize 
at  least  some  of  the  main  pragmatic  demands 
of  that  period. 

What  must  the  primitive  Christians'  gospel 
contain  in  order  to  insure  its  effectiveness  in 
the  thought-world  of  their  day?  In  the  first 
place,  and  above  all  else,  it  must  offer  an 
assurance  of  salvation.  The  notion  of  salvation 
did  not  originate  with  Christianity,  nor  was 
Jesus  the  first  individual  to  be  looked  upon  as 
a  deliverer.  The  ancient  religions  of  Egypt, 
Babylonia,  and  Persia  all  entertained  the  hope 
of  salvation  for  humanity,  and  pictured  more 
or  less  vividly  the  idea  of  redemption.  The 
syncretistic  faiths  of  the  Roman  world  in  Jesus' 
day  show  similar  traits.  Even  the  Roman  poet, 
Vergil,  voiced  sentiments  of  this  sort  and  seemed 
to  think  Augustus  had  ushered  in  the  new  age. 
Men  everywhere  hoped  for  deliverance,  a  deliv- 
erance ultimately  to  be  effected  by  the  deity.  He 
alone  could  avert  evils,  destroy  enemies,  control 
fate,  and  give  humanity  a  triumphant  salvation. 


142  Tlie  Ilistoricily  of  Jesus 

Among  the  Jews  this  idea  became  highly 
specialized.  God  would  one  day  deliver  his 
chosen  people  from  their  enemies,  either 
destroying  all  foes  or  else  converting  them  into 
obedient  subjects  of  Israel's  sovereign.  While 
the  hope  of  political  freedom  was  still  strong, 
the  golden  age  awaited  the  appearing  of  an 
ideal  earthly  ruler,  the  descendant  of  the  hero- 
prince,  David.  But  the  period  of  temporary 
political  independence  under  the  Maccabeans 
proved  so  disappointing  that  in  some  circles 
less  thought  was  given  to  the  human  mediator 
of  the  divine  salvation  and  more  emphasis  fell 
upon  the  divine  activity  itself.  God  would, 
either  in  person  or  else  through  a  messenger  of 
his  from  the  spirit-world,  suddenly  demonstrate 
his  power  to  abolish  all  evil  and  to  set  up  a  new 
regime  in  a  renovated  earth.  In  the  meantime 
it  behooved  men  to  wait  upon  the  divine 
pleasure,  and  thus  to  insure  for  themselves  if 
possible  a  favorable  reception  when  God  should 
act.  While  there  was  diversity  in  matters  of 
detail,  the  main  ambition  of  Judaism  when 
Christianity  appeared  upon  the  scene  was  to 
win  God's  favor,  thus  establishing  for  man  an 
assurance  of  salvation. 

Under  these  circumstances  thought  of  Jesus 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     143 

after  his  death  could  scarcely  have  commended 
itself  even  to  his  disciples,  much  less  to  outr 
siders,  had  they  not  connected  him  in  some 
substantial  way  with  the  hope  of  salvation. 
Otherwise  a  propaganda  in  his  name  would 
have  been  impossible.  He  would  have  been  as 
unconditionally  dismissed  from  further  con- 
sideration as  were  Judas  of  Gamala  and  other 
discredited  messianic  aspirants.  Nor  was  it 
possible  for  the  first  Christians  to  hold  that 
Jesus'  earthly  life  had  given  the  actual  demon- 
stration of  his  saving  mission,  for  he  had  died 
and  deliverance  had  not  yet  been  fully  realized. 
In  this  his  career  was  like  that  of  Judas  and  the 
others;  but  he  was  unlike  them  in  that  the 
future  held  in  store  for  him,  so  they  asserted, 
the  opportunity  to  effect  the  consummation  of 
salvation.  He  was  soon  to  return  upon  the 
clouds  to  establish  the  kingdom.  However 
moderns  may  be  disposed  to  regard  this  feature 
of  early  belief,  it  certainly  was  an  indispensable 
item  in  the  primitive  interpretation  of  Jesus. 

What  had  Jesus'  earthly  life  to  do  with  his 
saving  mission  ?  Seemingly  very  little  in  the 
earliest  stages  of  interpretation.  Even  in  the 
synoptic  gospels  the  tardiness  of  his  followers 
in  attaining  faith  during  his  lifetime  is  every- 


144  The  Ilistoricity  oj  Jesus 

where  admitted.  When  they  do  at  last  confess 
their  belief  in  his  messiahship  they  are  still 
unprepared  to  hear  of  his  death,  they  do  not 
comprehend  the  reference  to  his  resurrection, 
and  they  disband  seemingly  without  hope  after 
his  crucifixion,  all  of  which  surely  implies  that 
whatever  t}q)e  of  messianic  hope  they  may 
have  entertained  for  Jesus  during  his  lifetime, 
his  death  brought  about  a  very  substantial 
transformation  of  their  faith.  The  realization 
of  salvation  now  became  more  distinctly  an 
other-worldly  affair,  awaiting  Jesus'  advent 
in  glory.  The  chief  evidences  that  Jesus  was 
the  coming  Messiah  were  not  found  at  first  in 
history  but  in  the  present  experiences  of  the 
Christians  themselves.  At  least  in  Paul's 
interpretation — and  we  have  little  reason  to 
think  that  at  this  point  he  differed  widely  from 
other  early  Christians — the  primary  proofs 
offered  are  (i)  Jesus'  resurrection  and  (2)  the 
spiritual  gifts  displayed  in  the  lives  of  believers, 
thus  attesting  Jesus'  present  lordship. 

Belief  in  Jesus'  resurrection  is  fundamental 
to  Paul's  faith.  He  defends  this  belief  by 
pointing  out  that  it  is  scriptural,  by  citing  the 
testimony  of  persons  still  living  who  have 
witnessed  visions  of  the  risen  Lord,  and  finally 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     145 

by  pledging  his  own  word:  "If  Christ  has  not 
been  raised  then  is  our  preaching  void,  your 
faith  also  is  void;  yea,  and  we  are  found  false 
witnesses  of  God,  because  we  witness  of  God 
that  he  raised  up  Christ."^  On  an  earlier 
occasion,  when  defending  the  superiority  of  the 
new  religion  in  comparison  with  the  assurance 
which  a  legalistic  religion  offered,  Paul  throws 
out  a  test  question:  "This  only  would  I  learn 
of  you,  Received  ye  the  Spirit  by  the  works  of 
the  law  or  by  the  hearing  of  faith  ?  .  .  .  .  He 
therefore  that  supplieth  to  you  the  Spirit  and 
worketh  miracles  among  you,  doeth  he  it  by 
the  works  of  the  law  or  by  the  hearing  of 
faith  ?"^  Evidence  of  Jesus'  lordship  is  thus 
proleptically  displayed  in  these  adumbrations 
of  the  new  age  soon  to  be  ushered  in  by  the 
Lord's  "parousia."  Hence,  for  Paul,  to  con- 
fess Jesus'  lordship  and  to  believe  that  God 
raised  him  from  the  dead  guarantees  salvation, ^ 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  that  Paul  did  not 
ask  his  hearers  to  go  back  into  Jesus'  earthly 
career  at  all  for  evidence  of  Jesus'  messianic 
dignity.     Paul  did  note  features  in  Jesus'  life, 

•  I  Cor.  15:4-8,  14  f. 

^  Gal.  3:  2,  5;  cf.  I  Cor.  12:  iff.;  II  Cor.  12:12;  Rom.  15:18  f. 

3  Rom.  10:9. 


146  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

such  as  his  Davidic  descent  and  his  death  on 
the  cross,  which  were  important  preHminaries 
in  the  coming  savior's  program,  but  these 
things  in  themselves  did  not  officially  authenti- 
cate him  as  the  Messiah.  By  these  marks 
alone  no  one  could  be  expected  to  recognize  in 
him  the  promised  deliverer.  True,  Paul  does 
think  that  Jesus  was  potentially  the  Messiah 
even  before  he  appeared  upon  earth,  but  he 
did  not  receive  the  insignia  of  office  and  the 
final  stamp  of  divine  authentication  until  he 
was  "declared  to  be  the  Son  of  God  with 
power,  according  to  the  spirit  of  holiness,  by  the 
resurrection  of  the  dead.'"  Almost  identically 
the  same  interpretation  is  given  in  Acts  2:325., 
where  the  disciples'  witness  to  the  resurrection, 
and  the  ecstatic  life  of  the  community  in  con- 
sequence of  Jesus'  exaltation,  are  cited  as  proof 
that  "God  hath  made  him  both  Lord  and 
Messiah,  this  Jesus  whom  ye  crucified."^ 
Again  in  Acts  13:33  Jesus'  resurrection  is 
mentioned  as  a  fulfilment  of  Ps.  2:  "Thou  art 

'  Rom.  1:4;  cf .  Phil.  2 : 9  f . 

'  Cf.  Acts  3: 13-15,  where  a  miracle  wrought  by  the  disciples 
in  Jesus'  name  is  evidence  that  God  "hath  glorified  his  Servant 
Jesus,"  and  where  the  disciples'  testimony  to  the  resurrection  is 
again  aflirmed. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     147 

my  son,  this  day  have  I  begotten  thee."  These 
passages  must  represent  an  early  type  of  think- 
ing, even  though  they  stand  in  so  late  a  work 
as  Acts.  They  will  not  have  been  created  in 
an  age  when  the  notion  had  become  current 
that  divine  sanction  had  already  been  officially 
set  upon  Jesus  at  the  transfiguration,'  or 
previously  at  his  baptism,^  or  even  before  his 
birth.3 

While  the  disciples,  on  the  basis  of  their 
resurrection  faith  and  the  community's  ecstatic 
life,  may  have  been  content  to  wait  for  further 
proof  of  Jesus'  messiahship  in  what  was  yet  to 
happen,  others,  and  particularly  Jews,  must 
have  demanded  a  more  immediate  basis  for 
faith.  How  could  the  early  preachers  plausibly 
ask  their  hearers  to  believe  that  Jesus  would 
come  on  the  clouds  with  a  divine  commission 
to  deliver  Israel  ?  We  have  already  noted  that 
some  Jews  at  this  time  cherished  the  hope  of  a 
heavenly  Messiah  to  be  sent  forth  from  God 
with  miraculous  power  to  deliver  the  faithful. 
Others  were  willing  to   connect   the  idea  of 

'  Mark  9:7  =  Matt.  i7:5  =  Luke  9:3S>- 
'  Mark  i:ii  =  Matt.  3:i7  =  Luke  3:22.*^ 
3  Matt.  1:18-25;  Luke  1:26-38,*'' 


148  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

messiahship  with  an  earthly  individual  who 
would  exemplify  the  characteristics  of  their 
idealized  warrior-prince,  David,  and  under 
God's  guidance  deliver  Israel  from  political 
oppression.  But  Christians  were  asking  the 
Jews  to  identify  the  heavenly  Messiah  of  the 
future  with  an  earthly  individual  who  during 
his  lifetime  had  satisfied  none  of  the  generally 
accepted  tests  of  messiahship — an  individual 
who  had  in  fact  been  discredited  by  an  igno- 
minious death.  If  he  had  failed  to  meet 
messianic  standards  while  on  earth,  it  is  hardly 
surprising  that  there  was  difficulty  in  antici- 
pating for  him  any  future  display  of  messianic 
dignity.  Therefore  Christian  interpreters  were 
obliged  not  only  to  justify  the  heretofore 
unheard-of  procedure  of  identifying  the  man- 
Messiah  with  the  heavenly  Messiah;  but  if 
Jesus  was  the  Messiah  to  be,  it  was  not  unrea- 
sonable to  demand  some  foreshadowings  of  this 
fact  in  his  earthly  life.  These  necessities,  as 
we  shall  presently  see,  were  met  by  exhibiting, 
in  what  must  have  seemed  at  first — at  least  to 
Jews  if  not  to  Christians — a  non-messianic 
career  of  Jesus  on  earth,  elements  that  had 
messianic  significance;  and  this  ultimately 
meant  the  transference  of  his  saving  work  from 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     149 

the  realm  of  eschatology  into  the  domain  of 
history. 

Paul  remarks  that  it  was  characteristic  of 
Jews  to  demand  "signs"  in  proof  of  the 
Christians'  estimate  of  Jesus.'  Evidently  it 
was  Jesus'  death  to  which  exception  was  taken. 
This  seemed  to  Jews  a  mark  of  weakness,  so 
they  demanded  signs  of  Jesus'  power.  But 
instead  of  pointing  out  evidences  of  power  in 
Jesus'  historical  person,  Paul  replied  that  Christ 
crucified  is  the  power  of  God — witness  the 
resurrection  and  the  charismatic  endowments 
accompanying  the  propagation  of  the  new  faith. 
Similarly  in  synoptic  tradition  the  demand  for 
a  sign  during  Jesus'  lifetime  is  left  unmet,  so 
far  as  the  actual  request  is  concerned.  The 
Jewish  authorities  sought  a  sign — more  specifi- 
cally "a  sign  from  heaven" — but  Jesus  turned 
away  impatiently  with  the  curt  reply,  "to  this 
generation  no  sign  shall  be  given."  Some 
substitutes  were  suggested  in  the  tradition, 
such  as  the  sign  of  Jonah,  the  signs  of  the  times, 
or  the  sign  of  Jesus'  resurrection;  but  early 
Christian  tradition  uniformly  recognized  that 
the  particular  type  of  sign  demanded  by  the 
Jews  as  evidence  that  the  earthly  Jesus  was  to 

>I  Cor.  1:22  £f. 


150  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

be  identified  with  the  expected  Messiah  could 
not  be  historically  produced.' 

What  was  the  real  sign  from  heaven  which 
Jesus  so  uniformly  refused  his  own  generation  ? 
It  can  hardly  be  that  Mark,  for  example, 
thought  the  Pharisees  were  asking  for  a  miracle 
of  the  sort  Jesus  had  already  performed.  There 
would  not  be  anything  distinctive  about  this, 
for  they  had  already  witnessed  Jesus'  miracles 
on  various  occasions.  Their  request  was  rather 
for  a  special  demonstration  "from  heaven" 
which  should  leave  no  doubt  in  their  minds 
that  he  was  the  final  minister  of  salvation,  the 
Messiah.  There  was  one  pre-eminent  sign  that 
would  satisfy  the  Jews,  namely,  for  Jesus  to 
present  himself  riding  upon  the  clouds  in 
glory.  This  was  the  one  supreme  test,  regarded 
on  all  hands  as  final,  for  a  messiahship  of  the 
type  Christians  were  claiming  for  Jesus.  But 
this  proof  was  of  course  not  available  for  those 
of  Jesus'  own  generation.  Christian  interpre- 
tation could  not  make  this  a  matter  of  history 
but  must  treat  it  as  an  item  of  faith.  Thus  in 
the  narrative  of  Mark  the  "leaven"  of  disbelief 
on  the  part  of  the  Jewish  leaders  sets  off  to 

'  iSlark  8:11-13;  Mall.  16:1-4;  12:38  f.;  Luke  11:16,  29; 
12:54-56. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     151 

greater  advantage  the  disciples'  belief — tardy 
and  faltering  as  it  is — in  Jesus'  messiahship/ 
notwithstanding  the  unmessianic  character  of 
his  career  when  judged  by  the  standards  of 
popular  expectation.  In  Matthew  and  Luke, 
Pharisaic  disbelief  is  similarly  condemned  as 
the  trait  of  a  generation  which  is  "evil  and 
adulterous."^ 

But  how  could  the  Pharisees  be  fairly 
upbraided  for  disbelief  if  they  were  not  given 
a  sign  in  support  of  faith  ?  Christian  apologists 
recognized  this  need,  and  offered,  in  place  of 
the  as  yet  impossible  sign  from  heaven,  other 
data  which  were  held  by  believers  to  justify 
identifying  the  earthly  Jesus  with  the  future 
savior  from  heaven.  Negatively,  those  features 
in  Jesus'  career  which  seemed  to  contradict  this 
hope  were  explained  away  as  divinely  fore- 
ordained; while  more  positive  evidences  of 
Jesus'  uniqueness  were  found  in  other  features 
of  his  career.  Not  only  was  God's  special 
sanction  of  him  seen  in  his  resurrection  and  his 
spiritual  lordship  over  the  community — the 
main  pillars  of  the  first  Christians'  faith — but 
early  interpretation  was  able  to  exhibit  sanc- 

'  Mark  8: 14-21,  27-33. 

^  Matt.  12:39;   16:4;  Luke  11:29. 


152  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

tions  from  God  during  Jesus'  lifetime,  and  also 
attestations  of  uniqueness  given  more  immedi- 
ately by  Jesus  himself. 

This  brought  about  a  real  demand  for  a 
"Life  of  Christ."  The  earliest  efforts  in  this 
direction  probably  were  made  on  Je^vish  soil 
and  in  a  Jewish  atmosphere,  and  the  items  set 
in  the  foreground  of  the  narrative  were  naturally 
those  best  suited  to  show  that  the  earthly  Jesus 
was  worthy  of  messianic  honors.  WTiile  he  was 
still  pre-eminently  the  savior  to  come,  he  had 
also  accomplished  at  least  a  preliminary  sa\'ing 
work  while  on  earth.  But  as  his  coming  was 
delayed,  and  interest  in  the  realistic  Jewish 
eschatology  waned,  still  more  did  Christians 
realize  the  importance  of  finding  the  chief 
manifestation  of  Jesus'  saving  mission  in  his 
earthly  life.  This  evolution  was  a  gradual  one, 
but  it  is  clearly  observable  in  the  New  Testa- 
ment. At  the  beginning  stands  Paul,  with  his 
vivid  forward  look  warning  converts  that  the 
day  is  far  spent  and  the  night  is  at  hand  when 
all  shall  stand  before  the  judgment-seat  of  God.^ 
At  the  other  extreme  is  the  author  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  whose  faith  takes  a  backward 

'Rom.  13:12;  14:10;  cf.  I  Cor.  i:  7  f.;  3:13;  4:5;  II  Cor. 
5:10. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     153 

sweep  to  the  time  when  Jesus  first  came  forth 
from  God  to  save  the  world  by  his  work  upon 
earth:  "This  is  hfe  eternal,  that  they  should 
know  thee  the  only  true  God,  and  Jesus 
Christ  whom  thou  didst  send."'  In  John, 
the  Christians'  gaze  has  been  almost  com- 
pletely diverted  from  the  Coming  One  to  "the 
Way,  the  Truth,  and  the  Life,"  which  has 
already  been  revealed. 

One  of  the  first  necessities  of  primitive 
interpretation  was  to  counteract  the  popular 
belief  that  certain  well-known  features  of 
Jesus'  career  were  contrary  to  messianic  faith. 
His  death  for  instance  must  have  occasioned 
much  difficulty.  Paul  made  this  an  essential 
item  in  God's  scheme  of  salvation,  the  corner- 
stone of  the  gospel  of  redemption.  He  recog- 
nized that  both  Jews  and  gentiles  took  offense 
at  this  phase  of  the  Messiah's  career,  but  he 
personally  saw  in  it  a  demonstration  of  the 
wisdom  and  power  of  God.  His  language 
implies  that  he  was  not  the  first  to  grasp  this 
idea,^  yet  it  is  doubtful  whether  any  of  his 
predecessors  had  expounded  it  so  vigorously. 
At  first  the  disciples  seem  to  have  offered  no 
apology  for  this  event,  other  than  to  express 

'John  17:3.  ^I  Cor.  15:3. 


154  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

their  conviction  that  it  had  happened  in 
accordance  with  the  divine  will  as  revealed  in 
Old  Testament  prophecy.  Thus  it  was  an 
integral  element  in  the  scheme  of  salvation, 
even  though  no  one  chose  to  phrase  it  as  Paul 
did,  in  the  language  of  the  Jewish  sacrificial 
system. 

Perhaps  a  further  intimation  of  its  importance 
for  early  times  is  to  be  seen  in  the  fact  that 
about  one-third  of  the  Gospel  of  Mark  is 
devoted  to  the  closing  scenes  of  the  last  week 
of  Jesus'  life.  And  this  seems,  too,  to  be  a 
primitive  phase  of  tradition.  Jesus  does  not 
figure  here  even  as  a  worker  of  miracles,  dis- 
playing messianic  powers  already  bestowed 
upon  him  at  baptism;  he  is  rather  a  messianic 
claimant  whose  credentials  are  to  be  produced 
in  the  future.  Paul  said,  in  substance,  that  by 
death  Jesus  performed  the  last  act  preliminary 
to  entering  upon  the  final  part  of  his  messianic 
program;  according  to  the  passion  narrative  of 
Mark,  Jesus  was  put  to  death  because  he  had 
while  on  earth  expressly  asserted  his  right  to 
play  this  future  part.  In  either  case  the  event 
had  saving  significance,  in  that  it  was  one  act 
in  the  divinely  arranged  program  of  the  Savior. 
When  Jesus'  death  was  thus  disposed  of,  the 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition    155 

way  was  open  for  a  similar  disposition  of  every 
troublesome  feature  in  his  career. 

But  God's  interest  in  Jesus  was  not  confined 
simply  to  those  features  in  his  life  which  at  first 
sight  seemed  incongruous  with  messianic  faith. 
Di\'ine  approvals  of  a  positive  sort  were  to  be 
found  in  the  story  of  Jesus'  life.  Whether  Paul 
knew  nothing  of  these,  or  whether  he  merely 
felt  it  unnecessary  to  go  back  beyond  the 
resurrection  for  proof  of  Jesus'  messianic 
dignity,  is  difficult  to  determine  at  this  late 
date.  But  there  were  theologians,  and  some  of 
them  probably  were  contemporary  with  Paul, 
who  recognized  the  desirability,  and  found 
themselves  equal  to  the  task,  of  presenting 
evidence  from  Jesus'  lifetime  in  support  of  their 
messianic  faith.  Instead  of  pointing  merely  to 
the  resurrection  as  the  occasion  when  God  had 
explicitly  authenticated  Jesus,  they  gave  an 
account  of  a  "transfiguration"  near  the  close 
of  Jesus'  career  when  a  foretaste  of  his  approach- 
ing resurrection  glory  was  vouchsafed  to  a  few 
chosen  disciples,  and  when  the  divine  voice 
proclaimed  him  to  be  God's  beloved  Son  whom 
the  disciples  were  to  "hear."  It  was  thought 
by  other  interpreters  that  God  had  given 
similar  testimony  at  Jesus'  baptism;    and,  by 


156  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

the  time  the  tradition  contained  in  the  infancy 
narratives  had  taken  form,  it  was  discovered 
that  God  had  exphcitly  indicated  his  approval 
of  Jesus'  earthly  mission  even  before  his  birth. 
Finally,  the  writer  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  con- 
ceives Jesus  to  have  been  the  incarnation  of  the 
pre-existent,  divine  logos,  sent  from  God. 

For  Christians  these  were  veritable  signs  from 
heaven,  but  they  were  not  directly  available  for 
outsiders.  They  had  to  be  mediated  by 
believers.  WTiile  Jews  were  familiar  with  the 
Old  Testament  prophecies  in  which  foreshadow- 
ings  of  Jesus'  death  were  found,  there  was  a 
wide  difference  between  the  current  and  the 
Christian  inteq^retations  of  these  Scriptures. 
Furthermore,  God's  approval  of  Jesus  at 
transfiguration  and  at  baptism  had,  at  least  in 
the  earliest  tradition,  to  be  taken  purely  on  the 
testimony  of  believers.  Only  in  later  forms  of 
the  narrative  are  such  e\ddences  made  available 
for  the  public,  as  in  the  Matthean  version  of  the 
baptism,  where  the  voice  speaks  about  Jesus 
rather  than  directly  to  him  as  in  Mark.  Also 
in  the  Fourth  Gospel,  John  the  Baptist  had  been 
divinely  instructed  regarding  Jesus'  messiah- 
ship,  and  the  multitude  were  the  auditors  when 
God  announced  the  glorification  of  the  Son  in 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     157 

John  12 :  28  ff.  But  even  had  these  items  been 
in  circulation  earlier,  it  is  doubtful  whether 
they  would  have  satisfied  the  actual  demands 
of  the  situation.  Not  only  would  opponents 
ask  for  more  objective  proofs  of  messiahship 
from  Jesus'  own  personal  life,  but  Christians 
themselves  must  have  felt  a  similar  desire  when 
once  it  was  believed  that  Jesus'  messiahship 
had  been  divinely  attested  during  his  earthly 
life,  and  that  certain  features  in  his  earthly 
career  were  an  integral  part  of  his  saving  work. 
One  of  the  earliest  passages  expressing  God's 
approval  of  Jesus  contains  the  injunction 
"hear  ye  him."'  This  carried  with  it  the  idea 
of  a  unique  message  delivered  by  the  Son. 
Nor  could  interpretation  be  satisfied  with  any- 
thing less  than  explicit  statements  from  Jesus 
himself,  if  these  could  possibly  be  obtained, 
asserting  his  uniqueness.  Furthermore,  Jesus 
as  the  Son  who  already  at  baptism  is  the  object 
of  the  Father's  good  pleasure  must  needs  display 
in  his  career  a  special  type  of  conduct.  Hence 
more  detailed  evidences  of  Jesus'  messiahship 

'Mark  9:7;  cf.  Acts  3:22f.  It  must  have  been  an  early 
interpretation  which  first  placed  God's  authentication  so  late  in 
Jesus'  career,  rather  than  at  his  baptism.  It  has  indeed  been 
suggested  that  the  transfiguration  story  was  originally  a  resur- 
rection narrative  (ct.  Wellhausen,  Das  EvangeUum  Marci,  Berlin, 
1903,  P-  77)- 


158  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

are  found  in  (i)  his  prophet-like  teaching,  (2) 
his  specific  messianic  claims,  and  (3)  his  mighty 
works.  These  items  are  all  of  the  nature  of 
self-attestations  on  the  part  of  Jesus,  in  com- 
parison with  those  authentications  given  more 
immediately  by  God." 

Evidently  Jesus'  teaching  was  brought  for- 
ward at  a  relatively  early  date  to  demonstrate 
his  supremacy.  In  a  synoptic  passage  usually 
thought  to  come  from  the  earliest  common- 
source  material  used  in  the  composition  of 
Matthew  and  Luke,^  when  messengers  from 
John  the  Baptist  request  Jesus  to  testify  con- 
cerning himself,  the  climax  of  his  reply  is,  "The 
poor  have  the  gospel  preached  to  them,  and 
blessed  is  he  whosoever  shall  not  find  occasion 
for  stumbling  in  me."  As  these  words  now 
stand  in  our  gospels  their  original  force  appar- 
ently has  been  somewhat  weakened  by  taking 
literally  the  previous  statements  about  giving 
sight  to  the  blind,  healing  the  lame,  cleansing 
the  lepers,  curing  the  deaf,  and  raising  the  dead. 

■  The  latter  apparently  were  the  earlier  interest,  e.g.,  with 
Paul  (cf.  also  Acts  2:32;  3:15)  God  raises  Jesus,  but  in  Mark 
Jesus  simply  "rises";  in  Acts  2:22  Jesus'  miracles  are  works 
which  "God  did  by  him"  (cf.  Matt.  12 128  =  Luke  11:  20 — a  "Q" 
passage),  but  in  Mark  it  is  Jesus'  own  authority  which  stands  in 
the  foreground. 

'Matt.  11: 2-6  =  Luke  7:18-23. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     159 

In  the  first  instance  this  language  probably  was 
intended  to  describe  the  beneficent  qualities  of 
Jesus'  message,  like  that  of  the  prophet  Isaiah 
cited  by  Jesus  in  Luke  4:18:  "  The  Spirit  of  the 
Lord  is  upon  me,  because  he  anointed  me 
to  preach  good  tidings  to  the  poor,  etc." 
Emphasis  upon  Jesus'  prophetic  preaching 
rather  than  upon  his  miracles,  as  the  distinctive 
mark  of  his  saving  work,  is  characteristic  of  the 
primitive  non-Markan  source  material.  It  is 
here  that  the  men  of  Nineveh  who  "repented 
at  the  preaching  of  Jonah,"  and  the  queen  of 
the  south  who  came  to  "hear  the  wisdom  of 
Solomon,"  are  promised  precedence  over  the 
men  of  Jesus'  own  generation  in  the  day  of 
judgment.^  Similarly  at  the  beginning  of  his 
public  career,  when  it  is  suggested  that  he  appeal 
to  miracles  in  order  to  test  his  divine  sonship,  he 
emphatically  refuses  the  challenge.^  Not  only 
are  miracles  of  Jesus  rarely  mentioned  in  this 
section  of  gospel  tradition,  but  his  ability  in 

'  Matt.  12:41  f.;  Luke  11:31  f. 

*  Matt.  4:i-ii=Luke  4:1-13.  It  is  noteworthy  that  Mark 
slurs  over  this  phase  of  the  tradition,  evidently  feeling  it  to  be 
inconsistent  with  the  prominence  given  to  miracles  in  the  Markan 
narrative.  Even  the  temptation  incident  has  been  retouched  by 
Mark,  seemingly  in  favor  of  the  miracle  interest.  At  least  the 
ministration  of  angels  has  been  introduced,  while  in  the  earlier 
source  Jesus  had  positively  refused  to  invoke  their  aid. 


1 60  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

this  respect  is  implied  to  be  not  essentially  differ- 
ent from  that  of  other  righteous  men  in  Israel.' 
As  proof  of  his  superiority,  mighty  works  did 
not  appeal  to  the  framers  of  this  primitive  type 
of  tradition  so  much  as  did  the  spiritual  and  pro- 
phetic cjuality  of  Jesus'  teaching.  This  is  a  per- 
fectly natural  situation,  for  Jews  did  not  find 
the  uniqueness  of  their  great  men  primarily  in 
their  ability  to  work  miracles,  but  in  the  fidelity 
with  which  they  uttered  the  word  of  God. 

A  similar  method  of  showing  that  Jesus  was 
to  be  identified  with  the  Messiah  to  come  is 
seen  in  Acts,  chap.  3.  His  earthly  career  had 
not  been  one  of  brilliant  messianic  display,  and 
his  death  had  taken  place  in  accordance  with 
prophecy  (vs.  18).  He  had  figured  as  the 
suffering  servant  of  God,  who  was  later  glorified 
through  the  disciples'  witness  to  his  resurrection 
and  through  miracles  wrought  in  his  name 
(vss.  13-15).  In  heaven  he  now  awaited  God's 
pleasure  in  bringing  about  the  time  for  him  to 
appear  in  his  full  messianic  role  (vs.  20).  His 
earthly  life  had  been  "messianic"  only  in  the 
sense  that  he  was  the  prophet  like  unto  Moses 
whose  coming  the  great  lawgiver  had  foretold. 
His  mission,  therefore,  was  to  speak  to  Israel 

'  Malt.  12: 27  =  Luke  ii:  19. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition    i6i 

the  word  which  should  prove  a  blessing  by 
turning  them  from  their  iniquities.  It  was 
Israel's  fatal  mistake  not  to  have  hearkened 
unto  "that  prophet"  (vss.  23  and  26).  Here 
again  the  very  content  of  the  tradition  forbids 
that  we  credit  the  author  of  Acts  with  its  first 
composition.  The  use  of  a  source  has  to  be 
assumed  for  this  as  for  similar  primitive 
elements  in  the  Third  Gospel. 

The  necessity  of  placing  Jesus  beside  Moses 
and  the  prophets  must  have  been  early  felt, 
particularly  in  Jewish  circles.  This  interest  is 
served  by  picturing  Christianity's  natal  day  as 
a  time  when  the  earth  trembled  and  the  Spirit, 
like  fiery  flames,  came  upon  believers,  with  the 
result  that  all  foreigners  in  Jerusalem  at  the 
time  heard  the  gospel  preached  in  their  several 
tongues.  The  prototype  of  this  scene  is  Mount 
Sinai  trembling  and  aflame  when  the  law  is 
delivered  to  Israel,  and  when,  according  to 
Jewish  Midrashim,  the  law  had  been  proclaimed 
in  seventy  different  languages  to  as  many 
different  nations,  though  accepted  by  none  but 
Israel.  Thus  God  acts  as  marvelously  in  the 
founding  of  Christianity  as  in  the  establish- 
ment of  Judaism;  and  Moses  figures  much  less 
significantly  than  does  Jesus,  whose  heavenly 


1 62  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

exaltation  is  itself  the  basis  of  the  Spirit's 
activity.  But  even  in  Jesus'  lifetime  Moses 
and  Elijah — representing  the  "Law"  and  the 
"Prophets" — appear  in  conversation  with  Jesus 
on  the  Mount  of  Transfiguration.  Here  Peter, 
who  has  been  spokesman  for  the  disciples  in  their 
recognition  of  Jesus'  messiahship,  now  proposes 
to  make  three  tabernacles,  "one  for  thee,  one 
for  Moses,  one  for  Elijah."'  When  the  new 
religion  became  conscious  of  its  owti  existence, 
its  founder  of  necessity  took  precedence  over 
the  ancient  Hebrew  worthies. 

This  phase  of  Christian  thinking  ine\itably 
grew  in  importance  as  Christianity  remained 
for  some  time  in  close  contact  with  Judaism. 
It  was  desirable  to  recall  that  Jesus'  teaching 
had  been  superior  to  that  of  the  rabbis,  and 
that  he  had  in  fact  excelled  all  scribes,  sages, 
prophets,  and  lawgivers  of  old.  It  could  be 
said  of  the  scribe:  "He  will  seek  out  all  the 
wisdom  of  the  ancients,  and  will  be  occupied 
in  prophecies.  He  will  keep  the  discourse  of 
the  men  of  renown,  and  will  enter  in  amidst 
the  subtilties  of  parables.  He  wdll  seek  out  the 
hidden  meaning  of  proverbs,  and  be  conversant 
in  the  dark  sayings  of  parables."^    Yet  more 

'  Mark  9 : 4  f .  =  Matt.  1 7 : 3  f .  =  Luke  9 :  30-33. 
'Sir.  39:1-3. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     163 

could  be  said  of  Jesus.  He  was  not  merely  an 
interiDreter  of  other  men's  proverbs  and  para- 
bles, but  was  himself  the  author  of  teachings  so 
subtle  that  even  his 'own  disciples  understood 
him  with  difficulty  and  outsiders  were  com- 
pletely mystified.^  Other  teachers  might  ex- 
pound the  wisdom  of  the  older  sages,  but  Jesus 
excelled  even  Solomon,  the  most  highly 
esteemed  of  the  Hebrew  wise  men.^  Jesus' 
understanding  of  the  prophets  was  not  only 
superior  to  that  of  contemporary  teachers,  but 
he  was  himself  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy  and 
the  author  of  a  new  dispensation  in  which  even 
the  more  lowly  members  were  greater  than  the 
last  and  greatest  of  the  prophets  of  Israel.^ 
He  was  also  an  authoritative  expounder  of  the 
law,  even  to  the  extent  of  criticizing  its  enact- 
ments regarding,  for  example,  sabbath  observ- 
ance and  divorce/  Yet  many  early  Christians 
did  not  feel  that  the  new  faith  meant  the  abroga- 
tion of  the  law,  and  they  regarded  as  least  in 
the  kingdom  all  who,  like  Paul,  taught  men  to 
discard  Mosaic  injunctions.  On  the  other 
hand,  Jesus  was  the  new  messianic  lawgiver 

'  Mark  4:9-12. 

*  Matt.  i2:42  =  Lukc  11:31. 

3  Matt.  1 1 : 9-1 1  =  Luke  7 :  26-28. 

4  Mark  2:27;  10:5  f. 


164  The  11  istor icily  of  Jesus 

who,  by  way  of  fulfilling  rather  than  abrogating 
the  Mosaic  dispensation,  placed  his  word  above 
that  which  they  of  old  time  had  spoken.' 
Hence  Jesus  was  naturally  described  as  exempli- 
fying many  superior  traits  of  personality, 
surpassing  even  Moses.  Josephus  probably 
represents  current  Jewish  opinion  when  he 
describes  Moses  as  a  prophet  whose  like  had 
never  been  known,  so  that  when  he  spoke  you 
would  think  you  heard  the  voice  of  God  himself ; 
while  his  life  was  so  near  to  perfection  that  he 
had  full  command  of  his  passions,  and  knew 
them  only  by  name  as  perceiving  them  in 
others.^  Ultimately  Christian  tradition  was 
able  to  say  of  Jesus  that  "never  man  spake  as 
this  man"  and  no  one  was  able  to  convict  him 
of  sin.3  Christian  interpreters  were,  from  an 
early  date,  under  pressure  to  give  Jesus  first 
place  in  the  gallery  of  Israel's  greatest 
worthies. 

As  a  foreteller  of  coming  events  Jesus  figures 
quite  uniquely.  It  was  very  desirable  that  he 
should  be  thus  presented  to  men  of  that  age. 
The  same  Deuteronomic  passage  in  which  the 
primitive  Christians  found  Moses'  prediction  of 

'  Malt.  5:21-48.  3john7:46;  8:46. 

^  AnI.,  IV',  viii,  49. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     165 

Jesus  also  provided  a  test  for  determining  the 
validity  of  any  individual's  claim  to  be  the 
promised  prophet:  "When  a  prophet  speaketh 
in  the  name  of  Jehovah,  if  the  thing  follow  not, 
nor  come  to  pass,  that  is  the  thing  which 
Jehovah  hath  not  spoken;  that  prophet  hath 
spoken  it  presumptuously,  thou  shalt  not  be 
afraid  of  him.'"  It  had  to  be  shown  that  Jesus 
met  this  test,  else  it  would  have  been  vain  for 
Christians  to  present  him  to  the  Jews  as  the 
fulfilment  of  Moses'  prophecy.  Accordingly 
gospel  tradition  notes  that  he  predicted  his 
death,  his  resurrection,  the  destruction  of  the 
temple,  disaster  for  the  Jewish  nation,  and  his 
own  return  in  glory — all  items  closely  con- 
nected with  his  messianic  program. 

The  desirability  of  presenting  evidence  of 
Jesus'  predictive  powers  may  have  been 
enhanced  by  the  siege  and  fall  of  Jerusalem. 
As  Josephus  looks  back  upon  that  disaster  he 
notes  many  premonitory  signs,  and  blames  the 
Jews  for  not  giving  heed  to  these. ^  Among 
other  things  he  affirms  that  soldiers  had  been 
seen  running  about  among  the  clouds,  which, 
he  naively  remarks,  might  seem  doubtful  were 
it  not  that  those  who  actually  saw  the  thing 

•  Deut.  18:22.  ^  War,  VI,  v,  3. 


1 66  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

bore  testimony  to  its  occurrence.  There  was 
also  at  Pentecost  one  year  a  quaking  of  the 
earth  and  a  great  noise  followed  by  a  super- 
natural, warning  voice.  But  clearest  and  most 
terrible  of  all  was  the  utterance  of  one  Jesus, 
son  of  Ananus,  who,  four  years  before  the  war 
began,  proclaimed  woe  upon  Jerusalem,  and 
upon  the  people,  and  upon  the  holy  house. 
This  he  continued  to  cry  for  seven  years  and 
five  months  "without  becoming  hoarse  or 
growing  tired,"  until  finally  he  was  killed  in 
the  siege.  Then  Josephus  concludes:  "Now  if 
any  man  will  consider  he  will  find  that  God 
takes  care  of  mankind,  and  by  all  ways  possible 
foreshadows  to  our  race  what  is  for  their 
preservation."  This  doubtless  was  current 
belief  in  Josephus'  day,  though  many  Jews 
might  not  accept  his  specific  application  of  the 
principle  to  reflect  discreditably  upon  their 
leaders  whom  he  describes  as  "men  infatuated, 
without  either  eyes  to  see  or  minds  to  consider" 
the  denunciations  made  to  them  by  God. 

We  may  say  that  Josephus  found  his  signs 
and  made  his  interpretation  to  suit  his  needs, 
but  Christians  also  passed  through  the  trying 
experiences  of  those  days  and  were  none  the 
less  under  the  compulsion  of  adjusting  their 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition    167 

thinking  to  the  historical  events — events  so  ter- 
rible that  they  seemed  to  presage  the  end  of  the 
world.  Since  Jesus  was  believed  to  have  stood 
in  unique  favor  with  God,  and  was  the  one  to 
bring  in  the  new  age,  it  was  very  desirable  that 
Christians,  during  the  momentous  events  attend- 
ing the  siege  and  fall  of  Jerusalem,  should  recall 
such  words  of  Jesus'  as  seemed  to  point  to  this 
event  and  to  indicate  the  manner  in  which  his- 
tory would  issue.  It  was  fortunate  for  believers 
that  they  were  able  to  recall  Jesus'  predictions 
of  disasters,  and  to  assure  themselves  that  he 
believed  these  disasters  to  be  merely  prelimi- 
nary to  the  consummation  of  his  own  kingdom. 
We  have  already  observed  that  Jesus'  mighty 
works  are  not  greatly  emphasized  in  the  early 
non-Markan  tradition.  They  do,  however, 
occupy  a  prominent  place  in  the  Gospel  of 
Mark,  particularly  in  the  account  of  the 
Galilean  ministry.  While  the  specific  need 
which  first  prompted  a  rehearsal  of  Jesus' 
miracles  is  somewhat  uncertain,  the  pragmatic 
interest  which  they  serve  in  the  Markan  narra- 
tive is  quite  evident.  After  baptism  Jesus 
shows  himself  to  be  the  Spirit-filled  Son  of  God, 
who  first  resists  Satan's  attack  and  then  goes 
forth  to  display  his  triumph  over  the  forces  of 


i68  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

this  evil  age  by  casting  out  demons,  healing  the 
sick,  and  transcending  the  limitations  of  nature 
generally.  In  this  he  is  not  merely  exhibiting 
traits  suggested  by  comparison  with  Old 
Testament  worthies  like  Moses  and  Elijah. 
These  individuals  were  on  occasion  granted  the 
exercise  of  miraculous  powers,  but  in  Jesus' 
case  this  ability  is  more  distinctly  his  own  pre- 
rogative. There  are  intimations  that  in  some 
of  the  tradition  Jesus'  power  was  less  immedi- 
ate. Peter  at  Pentecost  describes  Jesus  as  "a 
man  approved  of  God  unto  you  by  mighty 
works  and  wonders  and  signs  which  God  did  by 
him  in  the  midst  of  you,"'  and  again  in  the 
Beelzebul  incident  Jesus  affirms  that  he  casts 
out  demons  ''by  the  finger  of  God."^  But  in 
Mark's  representation  Jesus'  self-sufficiency 
stands  in  the  foreground,  the  only  conditioning 
factor  being  that  of  "faith."  Nor  are  Jesus' 
miracles  here  put  forward  primarily  as  "signs" 
to  stimulate  belief.  In  the  Fourth  Gospel  they 
are  precursors  of  faith;  in  Mark  they  are 
regularly  the  consequent  of  faith.  Thus  for 
the  Second  Evangelist  Jesus'  miracles  are  not 
merely  messianic  credentials,  but  are  a  benefi- 
cent outflowing  from  the  person  of  the  Messiah 

'  Acts  2:22.  '  Luke  11:  20;  cf.  Matt.  12:27. 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     169 

whose  presence  already  brings  the  blessings  of 
the  new  age  within  the  reach  of  believers  and 
near-believers.  The  disciples  do  not  always 
understand  the  significance  of  Jesus'  activity, 
but  the  demons  do,  for  they  perceive  with 
alarm  that  God's  deliverer  is  at  hand.  In  the 
"temptation"  he  conquered  their  leader,  Satan, 
and  now  he  proceeds  by  exorcism,  healings,  and 
various  triumphs  over  nature's  limitations,  to 
despoil  Satan's  domains. 

This  conception  answers  in  a  general  way  to 
the  Jewish  notion  of  the  blessings  to  attend  the 
Messiah's  appearing,  but  it  is  phrased  more 
immediately  in  terms  of  Christian  experience 
within  the  primitive  community.  Paul  believes 
that  this  present  evil  world  is  coming  to  naught 
through  the  victory  of  the  Spirit  in  the  lives  of 
Christians,  and  that  its  final  collapse  will  take 
place  when  the  Messiah  comes  in  glory.  Accord- 
ing to  Mark  the  fatal  shock  was  felt  when  Jesus 
began  his  sa\dng  ministry  after  his  baptismal 
endowment  by  the  Spirit.'     At  a  time  when 

'  Cf.  the  Lukan  tradition,  which  represents  Jesus  as  seeing  the 
earnest  of  this  victory  in  the  miracle-working  career  of  his  dis- 
ciples. When  they  return  and  report  their  success  in  exorcism 
— though  significantly  enough  tradition  merely  generalizes  on 
their  activity  in  this  respect  prior  to  Jesus'  death — he  replies: 
"I  was  beholding  [idecbpow]  Satan  falling  as  lightning  from 
heaven"  (Luke  10:17-20). 


170  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

men  thought  themselves  victims  of  all  sorts  of 
evil  powers,  it  meant  much  to  feel  that  the 
new  religion  gave  the  Spirit-filled  believer  vic- 
tory over  these  foes.  And  the  Markan  repre- 
sentation of  Jesus'  activity  will  have  served  a 
most  beneficial  purpose  in  reminding  the  later 
generation  that  the  spiritually  endowed  Messiah 
had  exemplified  ideally  this  conception  of  \dc- 
tory  over  the  powers  of  the  evil  one. 

While  Jesus'  significance  for  salvation  is 
clearly  the  central  interest  of  early  interpreta- 
tion, there  doubtless  were  many  subsidiary 
interests  at  work  even  in  the  early  period.  The 
individual  bias  of  various  writers,  current 
Jewish  as  well  as  heathen  religious  notions, 
Christian  use  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
political  events  of  the  age,  the  problems  raised 
by  the  gentile  mission,  the  developing  organiza- 
tion of  the  church,  the  appearance  of  heretical 
teachers,  these  and  similar  forces  will  have  left 
their  stamp  upon  the  growing  evangelic  tradi- 
tion. For  an  accurate  historical  estimate  of 
details  in  the  gospel  narratives,  these  items 
would  need  to  be  scrutinized  more  closely. 
But  for  the  more  general  question  of  Jesus' 
existence  they  need  not  detain  us,  since  they 
were  clearly  secondary  and  contributory  to  the 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     171 

main  interest  of  showing  Jesus  to  be  the  well- 
authenticated  mediator  of  the  divine  salvation. 
Whether  primitive  interpretation  does  or  does 
not  allow  a  place  for  the  historical  Jesus  may  be 
determined  from  a  consideration  of  this  central 
feature  of  early  thinking.  In  comparison  with 
this,  other  items  are  of  minor  importance. 

Summarizing  the  results  of  the  above  survey, 
it  appears  that  interest  in  recording  fully  the 
events  of  Jesus'  career  did  not  manifest  itself 
at  the  very  beginning  of  the  new  religious 
movement.  At  first,  thought  was  directed 
mainly  toward  the  future  when  Jesus  would 
come  to  introduce  the  new  age.  Christian 
preachers  announced  the  approach  of  the  end, 
the  transitoriness  of  present  relationships,  the 
near  advent  of  the  heavenly  Messiah.  But 
since  they  identified  this  coming  one  with  Jesus, 
making  belief  in  his  messiahship  the  test  of 
admission  to  the  new  community,  they  could 
not  altogether  dispense  with  the  historical 
background  even  in  their  dogma.  Especially 
was  this  true  when  they  entered  upon  an 
evangelizing  propaganda.  For  those  whose 
belief  rested  upon  a  personal  vision  of  the  risen 
Lord,  historical  proofs  were  more  a  luxury  than 
a  necessity.    But  these  individuals  were  rela- 


172  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

tively  few  in  number  and  belonged  at  the  very 
beginning  of  the  new  religion.  The  spiritual 
gifts  in  the  life  of  the  community  were  more 
widely  observable,  and  seem  to  have  been  put 
forward  at  an  early  date  as  attestations  of  the 
new  faith.  But  all  these  experiential  evidences 
needed  to  be  supplemented,  especially  for 
outsiders.  Accordingly  reflection  upon  Jesus' 
earthly  career  enabled  interpreters  to  claim  for 
him  evidences  of  the  divine  approval,  and  to 
set  forth  traits  of  his  own  which  had  high  self- 
attesting  worth.  At  the  same  time  his  genu- 
inely saving  acti\dty  became  more  and  more 
closely  associated  with  his  career  upon  earth. 
Thus  ultimately  the  historical  horizon  of  inter- 
pretation was  broadened  to  take  in  Jesus'  entire 
life  from  the  manger  to  the  tomb. 

It  has  seemed  desirable  to  dwell  at  some 
length  upon  these  pragmatic  phases  of  early 
Christian  thinking,  since  sometimes  it  is 
assumed  that  a  full  recognition  of  these  inter- 
ests necessarily  carries  with  it  a  strong  proba- 
bility against,  if  not  an  outright  denial  of, 
Jesus'  historicity.  But  the  results  of  our 
inquiry  point  in  a  very  different  direction.  In 
"4he  first  place  they  serve  as  a  warning  against 
the  error  of   supposing   that   the   framers   of 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     173 

Christian  tradition  in  the  early  days  always 
recorded  all  they  knew  about  Jesus.  We  may 
sometimes  be  tempted  to  read  our  desire  for 
full  historical  information  back  into  the  minds 
of  the  New  Testament  writers,  and  thus 
unjustly  to  affirm  that  they  knew  only  so  much 
of  a  historical  Jesus  as  they  recorded.  This 
argument  from  silence  is  a  most  precarious  one. 
Moreover,  variations  or  inconsistencies  in 
different  interpretations  of  Jesus  do  not  neces- 
sarily imply  non-historicity  for  his  personality. 
Even  if  one  could  justly  claim  that  the  gospel 
picture  of  him  is  so  truncated  and  distorted  as 
to  be  impossible  in  reality,  it  would  not  follow 
that  he  never  actually  lived  but  only  that 
primitive  pragmatism  was  using  him  to  serve 
its  own  interests.  It  is  too  much  to  expect 
that  we  can  find  a  full  and  perfectly  uniform 
portrait  of  the  earthly  Jesus  in  our  present 
sources;  nor,  on  the  other  hand,  do  these 
deficiencies  compel  us  to  pronounce  the  entire 
tradition  historically  worthless.  The  primitive 
theologians  selected  and  preserved  those  fea- 
tures of  the  history  which  best  served  the 
interests  of  their  day,  even  though  the  result 
was  an  incomplete  picture  of  Jesus,  from  the 
standpoint  of  historical  perfection. 


174  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Indeed  it  is  very  probable  that  interpreters 
in  the  early  period  would  be  compelled  to  adhere 
rather  closely  to  history,  in  so  far  as  they  dealt 
with  items  which  had  come  under  the  observa- 
tion of  their  contemporaries.  Only  as  time 
removed  the  actual  occurrences  into  the 
shadows  of  the  past  could  freely  idealizing 
tendencies  be  brought  into  play.  But  it  does 
not  follow  that  Christians  themselves  would  be 
deterred  by  this  fact  from  taking  a  reverential 
attitude  toward  the  risen  Lord.  They  were  not 
making  the  earthly  Jesus  the  object  of  their 
worship;  this  they  were  rendering  to  the 
heavenly  Christ,  who  had  become  what  he  was 
through  the  direct  agency  of  God.  Further- 
more, the  early  believers  found  the  ground  for 
their  own  faith  in  personal  experience  rather 
than  in  historical  data.  It  may  be  psycho- 
logically necessary  to  presuppose  for  them  a 
high  estimate  of  the  earthly  Jesus  as  a  basis  for 
the  resurrection  faith,  but  it  is  not  absolutely 
essential  for  this  estimate  that  they  should 
previously  have  been  conscious  of  Jesus'  deity, 
nor  does  primitive  tradition  suggest  that  they 
were.  The  failure  of  the  disciples  to  perceive 
in  Jesus'  personality  while  he  was  with  them  on 
earth  the  significance  which  they  later  attached 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Tradition     175 

to  it  is  quite  generally  recognized  in  the  earliest 
parts  of  the  gospels.  In  the  first  stage  of  the 
post-resurrection  faith  reverence  was  justified 
mainly  by  God's  attestations  of  Jesus,  and  not 
until  later  reflection  had  done  its  work  did 
believers  come  to  appreciate  that  Jesus  during 
his  earthly  career  had  really  displayed  qualities 
which  made  him  worthy  of  the  later  faith. 
Then  the  disciples  understood  that  they  had 
been  slow  to  comprehend  his  significance — a 
fact  which  they  candidly  admitted. 

It  follows  therefore  that  they  had  a  distinct 
recollection  of  an  earthly  individual  with  whom 
they  had  associated,  yet  without  placing  upon 
him  at  that  time  the  particular  form  of  inter- 
pretation which  was  later  evolved  under  the 
inspiration  of  belief  in  his  resurrection.  We  are 
not  to  infer  that  this  individual  had  not  strongly 
impressed  himself  upon  the  memory  of  the 
disciples,  and  that  he  was  not  held  in  high 
esteem  by  his  associates,  though  this  esteem  may 
not  have  been  fundamentally  doctrinaire  in  type. 
Of  course  the  earthly  Jesus'  personality  may  well 
have  prompted  some  "doctrinal"  reflections 
among  his  followers  in  those  days  of  vivid 
messianic  expectations,  and  the  subject  may 
have  been  discussed  by  Jesus  himself,  but  any 


1 7'^  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

conclusions  to  which  such  reflections  may  have 
led  seem  to  have  been  pretty  generally  shattered 
by  Jesus'  death.  That  which  remained  with  the 
disciples  was  the  recollection  of  his  words  and 
the  memory  of  his  indi\dduality,  and  these  ulti- 
mately proved  sufficiently  substantial  to  sup- 
port the  superstructure  of  the  resurrection  faith 
and  the  doctrine  of  the  heavenly  Messiah. 

Wliile  gospel  tradition,  arising  under  these 
circumstances,  might  seem  to  be  primarily  a 
history  of  early  Christian  doctrine,  there  were 
forces  working  both  within  and  mthout  the 
community  compelling  interpreters  to  adjust 
their  thinking  to  the  actual  Jesus  of  history. 
Opponents  of  Christianity  would  not  permit 
them  to  ignore  the  data  of  history,  especially 
such  items  as  could  be  made  to  reflect  unfavor- 
ably upon  the  new  faith.  And  within  the 
community,  where  there  was  less  need  to  prove 
doctrinal  tenets,  believers,  in  their  daily  fellow- 
ship mth  one  another,  naturally  found  them- 
selves recalling  scenes  from  the  life  of  Jesus  and 
words  spoken  by  him  while  he  had  lived  in  per- 
sonal association  with  those  disciples  who  were 
now  the  inspiration  of  the  new  community-life. 

It  is  therefore  not  intrinsically  improbable 
that  we  shall  be  able  to  find  important  historical 


Pragmatic  Phases  of  Primitive  Pradition     lyj 

information  about  Jesus  in  our  present  gospels, 
no  matter  how  generally  we  admit  the  pos- 
sibility of  pragmatic  influences  at  work  in  the 
period  when  the  gospel  tradition  was  taking 
shape.  When,  in  our  modern  use  of  the  New 
Testament  writings,  we  are  merely  concerned 
to  discover  historical  data  regarding  Jesus,  we 
must  attach  most  importance  to  those  features 
of  tradition  which  seem  to  have  occasioned 
early  interpreters  difficulty,  or  which  are  not 
closely  linked  with  the  peculiar  doctrinal 
interests  of  the  primitive  apologetic.  If  our 
aim  were  to  ascertain  every  available  historical 
item  in  Jesus'  career  it  would  be  necessary  to 
make  detailed  application  of  this  test  to  the 
whole  gospel  history,  but  since  our  immediate 
purpose  is  merely  to  obtain  historical  evidence 
for  belief  in  Jesus'  actual  existence,  only  the 
more  primitive  phases  of  the  tradition — Paul's 
letters  and  the  earliest  gospel  materials — need 
be  examined  minutely. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE  PAULINE  EVIDENCE  FOR  JESUS' 
EXISTENCE 

The  genuineness  of  the  principal  Pauline 
epistles  is  among  the  most  generally  accepted 
conclusions  of  what  may  be  called  modern 
critical  opinion.^  The  evidence  for  this  accept- 
ance is  usually  regarded  as  exceptionally  good. 
For  instance,  Clement  of  Rome,  writing  to  the 
Corinthians  in  the  last  decade  of  the  first 
century  a.d.,  not  only  calls  Paul  a  "notable 
pattern  of  patient  endurance"  but  exhorts  his 
readers  to  peruse  again   "the  epistle  of  the 

'The  status  of  present  opinion  is  too  well  known  to  need 
detailed  statement  here.  The  extreme  views  of  B.  Bauer  and 
of  the  Dutch  school  are  quite  generally  discarded.  Steck  {Der 
Galakrbrief,  Berlin,  1888),  though  he  admits  the  possibility  of 
a  few  Pauline  fragments  in  Romans,  has  not  won  adherents  for 
his  skeptical  opinions.  The  partition  hypotheses  of,  e.g.,  Volter 
{Die  Komposilion  der  paiiUnischen  Briefe,  Tubingen,  1890)  and 
R.  Scott  {The  Pauline  Epistles,  New  York,  1909),  are  not 
looked  upon  with  even  partial  favor  among  specialists  in  this 
field.  The  results  of  the  Tubingen  criticism,  reworked  to  meet 
the  requirements  of  later  investigation,  leave  not  only  Galatians, 
I  and  II  Corinthians,  and  Romans  as  unquestionably  Pauline, 
but  also  Philippians  and  I  Thessalonians.  Colossians,  Ephesians, 
are  II  Thessalonians  are  nowadays  less  widely  rejected  than 
formerly,  and  even  the  Pastorals  are  thought  to  contain  some 
Pauline  elements. 

178 


The  Pauline  Evidence  179 

blessed  Paul"  which  he  wrote  them  in  ''the 
beginning  of  the  gospel,"  and  in  which  he 
charged  them  to  avoid  all  party  spirit.'  Here 
is  clearly  a  reference  to  our  canonical  First 
Corinthians.  Furthermore,  Clement's  letter 
often  shows  in  thought  and  language  very 
strong  resemblances  to  Paul's  writings.^  The 
evidence  of  Ignatius,  from  the  first  quarter  of 
the  second  century,  is  less  specific ;  but  Marcion, 
a  few  years  later,  is  a  most  significant  witness. 
He  attached  so  much  value  to  the  principal 
Pauline  letters  that  he  would  make  them  his 
main  scriptural  authority;  and  the  rest  of  the 
church,  while  it  regarded  Marcion  as  a  heretic, 
did  not  dispute  his  high  estimate  of  these  writ- 
ings, although  it  did  not  hold  to  them  quite  so 
exclusively  as  Marcion  did.  By  the  end  of  the 
century  several  available  sources  of  information 

'Clem.  5:5  ff.;  47:1  flf. 

*  As  an  example  compare  Paul 's  thought  and  phraseology  in 
I  Cor.,  chap.  13,  with  Clem.  49:1-5:  '0  ex'^"  o-'ya-T''nv  iv  Xpiffr/^ 
TTOiTjcrdrw  rd  rod  XptcrroO  Trapayy^XfxaTa.  rhv  decrfxbv  ttjs  dyaTrrjs 
ToO  OeoO  tU  SivaraL  i^yjyrjcraa'dai  ;  t6  fieyaXe'iov  ttjs  KaWovrjs  avroO 
rii  dpKerbi  i^€nr€7v ;  t6  v\pos  et's  6  dvdyei  rj  dydirri  dveKdfqyrjTSi' 
io'Tiv.  dydirrj  KoWq.  r]fj.S.s  t<^  de(^  •  dydirr]  KoKvirrei  ttXtjOos  dfxapTLdv 
dydir-q  irdvTa  d^'^xerai,  iravra  fxaKpodvp-et  •  oiid^v  (idvavaov  iv 
dydirrj^  ovbku  virep-qcpavov  •  dydirr]  ffxl^'^f^o^  oiiK  ex^'i  dydiry]  ov  crra- 
(Tid^ei,  dydirt]  irdvra  iroiel  iv  op.ovolq.  •  iv  t%  dydiry)  ireXeioodrjcrav 
irdvTfs  ol  iKXcKTol  tov   deov  ■    Sixc   dydirrjs  oiiSiv  eiidpecFTbv  icmv 


i8o  The  Hi  star  icily  of  Jesus 

bear  similar  testimony  to  the  Pauline  author- 
ship of  this  part  of  the  New  Testament. 

Yet  this  external  evidence  which  appeals  so 
strongly  to  many  investigators  is  easily  set 
aside  as  itself  spurious  by  those  who  deny  the 
genuineness  of  the  literature  traditionally  con- 
nected with  Paul's  name.  Doubtless  this  pro- 
cedure seems  arbitrary  and  subjective  to  one 
who  is  accustomed  to  weigh  all  the  historical 
evidence  with  care,  nevertheless  the  type  of 
argument  which  is  usually  directed  against  the 
historicity  of  Jesus  and  of  Paul  does  not  seem 
sensitive  to  statistics  of  this  sort.  Consequently 
any  attempt  to  meet  this  skeptical  argument 
on  its  own  ground  must  proceed  mainly  from 
considerations,  perhaps  more  or  less  general 
and  a  priori,  based  upon  the  content  of  the 
literature  in  question.  Here  lie  before  us  cer- 
tain documents  which  purport  to  belong  to  a 
definite  historical  setting.  On  the  strength  of 
the  internal  evidence  do  the  probabilities  seem 
to  favor  the  genuineness  of  this  representation, 
or  does  close  examination  show  that  the  picture 
is  a  later  fabrication  depicting  an  idealized 
period  in  the  past?  We  may  present  a  few 
considerations  which  seem  to  us  to  turn  the 
scales  decisively  in  favor  of  genuineness. 


The  Pauline  Evidence  i8i 

One  of  the  first  canons  of  a  pseudonymous 
writer  is  that  the  individual  impersonated  shall 
take  the  point  of  view  and  think  the  thoughts 
of  the  actual  writer,  and  of  the  age  to  which  he 
belongs.  His  primary  motive  is  to  claim  the 
support  of  a  great  name  for  his  own  opinions. 
Now  the  Pauline  literature  contains  elements 
which  do  not  answer  to  this  situation.  In  the 
first  place,  the  realistic  eschatology  credited  to 
Paul,  whose  active  career  is  pictured  as  belong- 
ing near  the  middle  of  the  first  century  a.d., 
will  hardly  have  been  invented  at  a  later  date 
when  subsequent  history  had  proved  the  falsity 
of  such  expectations.  Yet  this  idea  is  per- 
vasive in  the  writings  which  are  assumed  to  be 
put  forward  here  in  Paul 's  name.  The  Romans 
are  told  that  the  night  is  far  spent  and  the  day 
is  at  hand  when  all  shall  stand  before  the  judg- 
ment seat.'  Marriage  is  discouraged  among 
the  Corinthians  because  of  the  shortness  of  the 
time;''  they  are  commended  for  their  attitude 
in  "waiting  for  the  revelation  of  our  Lord  Jesus 
Christ,"  and  are  exhorted  to  refrain  from 
judging  one  another  in  view  of  the  near  ap- 
proach of  the  final  judgment — "judge  nothing 

'  Rom.  13: 12;  14: 10;  cf.  II  Cor.  5: 10. 
'  I  Cor.  7 :  29  ff . 


1 82  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

before  the  time,  until  the  Lord  come."'  In  the 
closing  words  of  the  first  letter  they  are  re- 
minded of  the  immediateness  which  charac- 
terized the  primitive  hope  as  expressed  in  the 
phrase  marana  tha.  Speaking  of  the  Philip- 
pians,  Paul  is  confident  that  God  who  has 
begun  a  good  work  in  them  "will  perfect  it 
until  the  day  of  Jesus  Christ,"  further  Paul 
expects  them  to  remain  "void  of  offence  unto 
the  day  of  Christ"  and  encourages  them  to 
stand  fast  confident  that  "  the  Lord  is  at  hand."^ 
The  Thessalonians  are  called  to  serve  the  true 
God  and  to  "wait  for  his  son  from  heaven  which 
delivereth  us  from  the  wrath  to  come,"  and 
they  are  advised  to  live  a  holy  life  that  they  may 
stand  blameless  before  God  "at  the  coming  of 
our  Lord  Jesus  with  all  his  saints,"  for  his 
coming  will  be  sudden  like  that  of  a  thief  in  the 
night.  The  hope  is  for  those  that  are  now 
alive  who  are  to  be  caught  up  in  the  air  to  meet 
the  Lord,  and  Paul  closes  his  letter  with  the 
pious  wish  that  their  "spirit  and  soul  and  body 
be  preserved  entire  without  blame  at  the  com- 
ing   of    our    Lord    Jesus    Christ."^    History 

'  I  Cor.  1:7  ff.;  4:5. 
'Phil.  1:6,  10;  4:5. 
il  Thess.  1:10;  3:13;  4:15-18;  5:2,  23. 


The  Pauline  Evidence  183 

proved  that  these  vivid  expectations  of  the  end 
of  the  world  were  not  to  be  realized,  and  an 
impersonator  will  hardly  have  created  for  his 
hero  ideas  that  would  discredit  him  in  the  eyes 
of  a  later  generation/ 

Against  the  hypothesis  of  pseudonymity  we 
may  set  also  the  minute  biographical  details  of 
the  epistles.  Sometimes  data  are  given  pur- 
posely to  tell  the  story  of  Paul's  life,  as  when  the 

'  Belief  in  the  immediateness  of  Jesus'  return  gradually  became 
less  vivid  as  time  wore  on.  Even  within  the  New  Testament 
period  this  change  is  marked.  Paul  looks  for  the  coming  soon, 
expecting,  until  toward  the  close  of  his  life,  at  least,  to  see  it  in 
his  own  day.  Mark  thinks  "some"  of  Jesus'  personal  followers 
will  Hve  to  see  the  day  (9:1;  13:30),  but  before  it  comes  the 
gospel  must  be  preached  to  all  the  nations  (13:10).  Though  no 
one  may  know  the  exact  time,  the  tribulation  attending  the 
siege  and  fall  of  Jerusalem  is  a  premonition  of  the  end  which  is 
to  come  suddenly  (13:24-37).  The  writers  of  Matthew  and 
Luke  have  a  similar  idea,  though  a  little  farther  postponed. 
The  former  changes  Mark's  "in  those  days  after  that  tribula- 
tion" to  "immediately  after  the  tribulation  of  those  days" 
(Matt.  24:29),  while  in  Luke  a  period  of  some  length  subsequent 
to  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  must  be  awaited  "until  the  times  of  the 
gentiles  be  fulfilled"  (Luke  21 :  24).  The  writer  of  II  Peter  3:8- 
10  apologized  for  the  delay  by  asserting  that  "one  day  is  with 
the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as  one  day. " 
In  the  Fourth  Gospel  the  idea  of  a  literal  return  has  disappeared 
and  the  coming  of  Jesus  in  spiritual  form  as  the  Paraclete  has 
taken  its  place — an  idea  which  later  interpreters  have  often  tried 
to  read  back  into  the  Synoptic  Gospels  and  the  Pauhne  letters. 
This  whole  progression  of  thought  throws  an  interesting  light  on 
the  primitive  character  and  the  genuineness  of  the  notions  credi- 
ted to  Paul. 


184  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Galatians  are  informed  of  his  career  from  the 
time  of  his  conversion  until  the  meeting  at 
Jerusalem;'  but  more  commonly  the  mention 
of  his  doings  is  entirely  subordinate  to  the 
main  line  of  thought.  For  example,  he  briefly 
notes  in  closing  his  letter  to  the  Romans  that 
he  is  on  the  point  of  going  up  to  Jerusalem  with 
a  gift  for  the  saints,  and  after  fulfilling  this 
mission  he  hopes  to  proceed  to  Rome.^  He  also 
tells  the  Corinthians  in  a  few  closing  words 
tliat  he  hopes  to  come  to  them  by  way  of  Mace- 
donia, though  at  present  he  is  in  Ephesus  where 
he  will  remain  until  Pentecost.^  The  list  of 
these  details  could  be  enlarged,  if  necessary, 
and  they  are  all  the  more  significant  because 
they  usually  come  in  quite  incidentally  and 
show  no  disposition  on  the  part  of  the  author 
to  give  a  full  account  of  the  apostle's  career. 
Had  an  impersonator  wished  to  make  Paul 
tell  his  own  life-story  we  can  easily  imagine 
that  he  may  have  been  sufficiently  skilful  to 
invent  details,  but  under  those  circumstances 
the  information  would  surely  have  been  more 
uniformly  distributed  and  its  lifelike  quality 
less  pronounced.     The  very  incompleteness  of 

'Gal.  1:15 — 2:1.  •» I  Cor.  16:5-9. 

'  Rom.  15: 25. 


The  Pauline  Evidence  185 

the  material  as  a  whole,  together  with  the 
exactness  of  detail  at  certain  points,  even 
where  the  information  conveyed  is  relatively 
unimportant,  seems  a  strong  credential  for  the 
genuineness  of  these  letters. 

A  similar  inference  may  be  drawn  from  the 
realistic  elements  in  the  general  historical 
situation.  How  strongly  one  feels  the  heart- 
throb of  reality  in  Paul's  passionate  appeal  to 
the  Galatians  not  to  apostatize  from  the  true 
faith;  or  in  the  more  extensive  Corinthian 
correspondence  regarding  living  problems  in 
the  primitive  church !  The  personal  element  is 
particularly  pronounced.  One  has  only  to  place 
the  Pauline  epistles  beside  Acts,  to  feel  the 
difference  in  spirit  between  Paul's  own  repre- 
sentation of  the  events  and  the  description  of 
his  activity  by  a  subsequent  narrator.  Having 
once  met  Paul  in  his  capacity  as  a  Christian 
missionary  in  Acts  one  knows  what  to  expect 
of  him  on  all  future  occasions;  he  moves  on 
with  stately  tread,  always  presenting  to  view 
the  same  somewhat  stereotyped  features.  There 
is  variety,  to  be  sure,  but  it  is  the  type  of 
variety  one  finds  in  the  colors  of  a  portrait 
rather  than  in  the  changing  aspects  of  real  life. 
In  Paul's  letters,  on  the  other  hand,  there  is 


1 86  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

no  conventionalized  portrait  of  his  personality. 
He  appears  there  as  one  who  is  vitally  influ- 
enced by  actual  experience,  making  a  normal 
response  through  the  free  play  of  changing 
moods. 

To  illustrate  this  point,  according  to  Acts  he 
goes  up  to  Jerusalem  at  the  instigation  of  the 
church  in  Antioch  to  discuss  the  problem  of  the 
gentile  Christians'  obligations  to  the  law;  the 
facts  of  the  gentile  mission  are  calmly  rehearsed, 
the  decision  is  made  in  favor  of  Paul's  position, 
he  retires  to  Antioch,  and  then  moves  on 
quietly  to  further  evangelization.  We  are 
given  no  hint  of  the  anxiety  he  felt  on  this 
occasion,  nor  do  we  appreciate  the  personal 
energy  he  expended  on  the  problem.  But  turn 
to  Galatians  and  how  different  is  the  situation! 
Anxiety  for  the  future  welfare  of  his  brethren 
in  the  gentile  churches  prompts  him  to  push 
the  question  to  a  decision  in  Jerusalem;  in 
order  to  make  the  problem  pointed,  and  thus 
to  avoid  future  misunderstandings,  he  puts 
Titus  forward  as  a  test  case;  with  nervous 
energy  he  presses  the  issue  almost  to  the  point 
of  belligerence;  he  wins  the  decision,  but  his 
joy  is  short-lived,  for,  on  returning  to  Antioch, 
new  conditions  develop  which  result  not  only 


The  Pauline  Evidence  187 

in  a  break  with  Peter  but  in  the  severance  of 
relations  with  his  friend  and  former  travehng 
companion,  Barnabas.  We  are  left  at  last  with 
no  picture  of  an  ideal  victory  for  Paul  but  with 
a  very  realistic  situation:  his  efforts  had  at 
first  seemed  successful,  in  the  flush  of  victory 
new  troubles  broke  out,  the  result  was  not  only 
the  antagonism  of  the  Jerusalem  church  but 
separation  from  Peter  and  Barnabas,  and  to 
what  extent  Paul  was  able  still  to  hold  the 
sympathies  of  the  Antiochian  church  may  be 
questioned.  Here  is  no  idealization  in  favor 
of  either  party,  but  a  break  which  shows  its  raw 
edges  just  as  we  are  wont  to  find  them  in  real 
life.  So  it  is  throughout  Paul's  entire  career  as 
portrayed  in  his  letters. 

To  a  remarkable  degree  his  personality,  as 
revealed  in  these  writings,  rings  true  to  reality. 
He  represents  himself  as  possessing  a  strongly 
emotional  temperament;  he  is  exceptionally 
efficient  in  speaking  with  tongues,  he  is  on 
occasion  caught  up  into  the  seventh  heaven, 
visions  and  revelations  of  the  Lord  are  often  his 
privilege.  And  this  is  the  type  of  person  he 
proves  to  be  in  the  ordinary  relations  of  daily 
life.  On  hearing  of  the  trouble  in  Galatia  his 
emotions   are   deeply   stirred,   he   calls   down 


i88  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

anathemas  upon  the  disturbers  and  upbraids 
the  Christians  for  their  fickleness,  then  he 
pleads  in  gentle  tones  with  his  "little  children" 
for  whom  he  is  again  in  travail.  The  same 
interplay  of  feelings  is  even  more  strongly 
marked  in  the  story  of  his  relations  with  the 
Corinthians.  Now  he  threatens  the  rod,  but 
in  the  next  breath  he  expresses  the  hope  that 
they  will  permit  him  to  come  to  them  "in  love 
and  a  spirit  of  gentleness";  and  when  the 
crisis  becomes  exceptionally  critical  instead  of 
visiting  them  in  severity  he  writes  a  letter  "out 
of  much  affliction ' '  and  ' '  mth  many  tears. ' '  At 
one  time  he  commends  himself  in  extravagant 
language,  and  then  his  sensitive  nature  seems 
to  recoil  and  he  pleads  with  his  readers  to  bear 
with  him  "in  a  little  foolishness,"  since  circum- 
stances compel  him  to  defend  his  rights  as  an 
apostle.  Later  in  his  career,  when  his  own  fate 
seems  to  be  hanging  in  the  balances,  he  alter- 
nates between  despair  and  hope  in  truly  normal 
fashion  and,  as  he  reflects  upon  the  possibilities 
for  the  future,  two  conflicting  desires  rise 
within  him:  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ  is 
better  for  him,  yet  to  abide  in  the  flesh  is  more 
needful  for  the  churches.  In  all  this  one  sees 
not  a  made-up  character  of  the  stage  but  an 


The  Pauline  Evidence  189 

actual  person  who  traversed  wide  ranges  of 
human  experience. 

Finally,  the  realistic  character  of  Paul's  work, 
the  vigor  of  his  thought,  and  the  uniqueness  of 
his  letters  show  him  to  have  been  a  genuinely 
vital  factor  in  the  propagation  of  the  new 
religion.  If  the  Pauline  letters  are  spurious, 
we  must  assume  a  character  of  the  past  known 
to  the  real  author  and  to  his  constituency  as 
worthy  of  the  role  here  assigned  Paul;  or  we 
must  suppose  the  real  author  possessed  a  crea- 
tive genius  which  would  surely  leave  its  mark 
on  the  life,  as  well  as  on  the  literature,  of 
the  time.  But  where  do  we  find  all  this  more 
fittingly  than  in  a  genuine  Paul  himself  ?  The 
task  of  fabricating  the  material  which  lies 
before  us  in  chapter  after  chapter  of  these 
letters,  where  the  definiteness  and  vividness 
of  an  actual  situation  show  behind  every 
sentence,   is   quite  inconceivable.^    The  force 

'  Speaking  of  the  failure  of  the  extreme  negative  criticism  to 
supply  an  adequate  historical  setting  for  the  phenomena,  J.  Weiss 
says:  "Woher  diese  Stoffe  vmd  Gedanken,  wer  hat  denn  die 
Person  des  Paulas  und  seine  Briefe  ersonnen,  wer  war  dieser 
Genius?  Eine  plotzliche  anonyme  Produktivitat  erhebt  sich, 
ein  Konfluxus  von  Geist  und  Begeisterung  wachst  aus  dem 
Boden,  man  weiss  nicht,  woher  er  kommt.  Und  das  alles  muss 
in  wenigen  Dezennien  fertig  geworden  sein,  denn  es  ist  dann  da 
und  lasst  sich  nicht  mehr  ableugnen."     Further:    "Man  soUte 


igo  The  Historicity  of  Jcsiis 

of  one  strong  and  distinctive  personality  pre- 
dominates throughout  the  main  part  of  the 
Pauline  literature,  whether  this  individual  is 
viewed  from  the  standpoint  of  his  activity,  or 
in  his  capacity  of  thinker  and  writer.  That  an 
impersonator  should  create  a  character  so 
unique,  and  yet  so  verisimilar  in  all  the  rela- 
tions of  life,  that  minute  yet  sometimes  insig- 
nificant details  about  him  should  be  told  with- 
out any  attempt  to  depict  his  career  in  full, 
that  he  should  be  assigned  some  phases  of 
thought  which  history  in  the  next  generation 
was  compelled  to  set  aside,  is  scarcely  within 
the  range  of  possibility.  The  historicity  of 
Paul  and  the  genuineness  of  the  principal 
Pauline  letters  are  supported  by  the  data  of 
both  external  and  internal  testimony;  and  if, 
say,  only  the  letter  to  the  Galatians,  or  one  of 
the  Corinthian  epistles,  is  genuine,  the  exist- 
ence of  a  historical  Jesus  would  seem  to  be 
amply  attested. 
But  it  may  be  urged  that  Paul  had  no  per- 

einmal  diesen  Radikalen  die  Aufgabe  stellen,  ein  oder  zwei  Kap- 
itel,  etwa  2.  Kor.  4  oder  10,  aus  der  Scele  cines  Falschcrs  hcraus 
Wort  fiir  Wort  zu  erklaren — dann  wiirden  sie  schon  merkcn,  wie 
unmoglich  das  ist,  wie  ganzlich  unschablonenhaft  und  ungekiin- 
stelt,  wie  springend  und  augenblicksmassig  hicr  alles  ist." — 
Jesus  von  Nazareth,  pp.  94  and  100. 


The  Pauline  Evidence  191 

sonal  knowledge  of  the  earthly  Jesus,  and  that 
his  contact  with  the  early  Jerusalem  community 
of  Christians  was  so  slight  that  he  would  not 
really  know  whether  their  preaching  about 
Jesus  concerned  a  historical  person  or  an  anthro- 
pomorphized god.  In  fact  it  is  asserted  that 
Paul  himself  is  the  real  founder  of  Christianity, 
which,  on  this  view,  is  essentially  a  speculative 
system  paying  little  attention  to  the  earthly 
Jesus.  This  opinion,  as  illustrated  in  Wrede's 
Paulus,^  is  triumphantly  reiterated  by  those 
who  wish  to  depreciate  the  significance  of  Paul 
as  a  witness  to  Jesus'  existence. 

Certainly  Paul  claimed  to  be  preaching  a 
gospel  which  looked  to  no  human  source  for  its 
authentication,  but  which  had  been  received 
by  him  directly  from  the  heavenly  Christ.  Yet 
this  bold  claim  to  independence  was  made  at  a 
time  when  the  apostle  was  under  fire  from  his 
opponents  who  were  ready  on  the  slightest 
pretext  to  interpret  his  contact  with  earlier 
Christians  as  evidence  of  inferiority.  Here 
clearly  it  is  doctrine  and  practice  as  taught  by 
Paul,  and  not  the  amount  or  reliability  of  his 
information  about  an  earthly  Jesus,  that  are 
the  subject  of  discussion,  and  there  is  nothing 

'Tubingen,  1904;  English  tr.,  Paul,  (Boston,  1908). 


192  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

in  Paul's  assertion  of  independence  to  exclude 
the  possibility  of  his  having  derived  a  large  stock 
of  information  about  Jesus  from  the  first 
disciples.  His  debt  to  them  may  have  been 
much  greater  than  he  himself  realized,  since 
whatever  he  received  had  been  thoroughly 
assimilated  by  means  of  his  own  vigorous  spiritu- 
ality. For  the  first  seventeen  (or  fourteen) 
years  of  his  career  as  a  Christian  he  seems  to 
have  lived  in  harmonious  relations  with  the 
earlier  Christians,  and  he  certainly  was  well 
enough  aware  of  their  way  of  thinking,  and  of 
the  value  attached  by  Christendom  to  their 
teaching,  to  realize  the  desirability  of  coming  to 
an  understanding  with  them  on  missionary 
problems. 

Yet  it  is  said.  If  he  had  information  about 
Jesus  why  did  he  not  use  it  ?  How  do  we  know 
that  he  did  not?  The  occasions  which  called 
forth  his  letters  were  not  such  as  to  demand 
detailed  exposition  of  the  life  of  Jesus.  Wrede 
takes  Paul's  failure  to  appeal,  in  his  contro- 
versy with  opponents,  to  Jesus'  free  attitude 
toward  legalism,  as  e\'idence  that  Paul  knew 
nothing  of  Jesus'  antilegalism.  This  inference 
is  hardly  justified.  Jesus'  criticism  of  rab- 
binism  was  not  aimed  primarily  at  the  abolition 


The  Pauline  Evidence  193 

of  traditional  ordinances,  and  in  fact  the  real 
precedent  of  Jesus  on  the  question  in  debate 
in  Paul's  day  was  against  Paul,  who  knew  and 
made  it  an  item  in  his  interpretation  that 
Jesus  had  been  subject  to  the  requirements  of 
the  law.  Paul  may  indeed  have  felt  that  he 
was  following  a  line  of  conduct  which  har- 
monized with  the  true  spirit  of  Jesus'  ethical 
criticism  of  current  legalism;  but  on  the 
practical  issue,  as  it  came  up  on  the  missionary 
field,  Paul  was  breaking  new  ground.  Un- 
questionably his  type  of  dogma  in  general,  and 
the  needs  his  epistles  were  written  to  serve, 
did  not  call  for  emphasis  upon  the  life-history 
of  the  earthly  Jesus,  but  to  interpret  this 
silence  as  meaning  utter  ignorance  is  not 
justified.  A  similar  argument  would  make  the 
author  of  Acts  ignorant  of  Jesus'  earthly 
career,  but  we  happen  to  know  that  this  same 
writer  composed  the  Gospel  of  Luke. 

And  is  Paul  so  completely  silent?  Drews 
thinks  so,  and  goes  to  the  extreme  of  saying 
that  a  reader  who  had  not  prejudged  the  ques- 
tion would  not  be  likely  to  suppose  that  the 
apostle  ever  thought  of  an  earthly  Jesus.  A 
few  passages  from  the  more  important  Pauline 
writings   may   show   the   impropriety   of   this 


194  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

statement.  Sometimes  "the  Lord"  is  referred 
to  in  a  way  that  suggests  knowledge  of  events 
and  teachings  in  the  lifetime  of  Jesus.'  Further- 
more Paul  speaks  of  Jesus  as  "born  of  the 
seed  of  David,  according  to  the  flesh. "^  In 
contrast  with  Adam,  whose  disobedience 
brought  condemnation  upon  his  descendants, 
Jesus  is  the  "man"  through  whom  God's 
grace  abounds  toward  believers.^  He  was  cruci- 
fied, and  this  fact  became  for  Paul  the  corner- 
stone of  interpretation.''  Specific  events  in 
connection  with  his  death — the  last  meal  eaten 
with  his  disciples  and  his  betrayal — ^were 
remembered.^  Paul  also  knew  of  a  company 
of  followers  whose  sadness  was  turned  into  joy 
by  an  experience  which  they  regarded  as  e\'i- 
dence  of  Jesus'  resurrection;^  and  these  events 
had  taken  place  in  recent  times,  Paul  having 
personal  acquaintance  with  relatives  and  friends 
of  this  Jesus.''  The  reality  of  an  earthly  Jesus, 
according  to  these  sample  passages,  seems  to  be 
an  indisputable  presupposition  of  Paul's  think- 
ing, a  reality  both  for  him  and  for  his  con- 

'I  Cor.  7:  lo,  12,  25;  9: 14;  11:23;  I  Thes.  4: 15. 

'Rom.  1:3.  si  Cor.  11:23  ff. 

3Rom.  5:i2fT.  *I  Cor.  15:5  fif. 

^I  Cor.  2:2.  7Cf.  I  Cor.  15:6;  Gal.,  chap.  2. 


The  Pauline  Evidence  195 

temporaries.  Although  he  speculates  boldly 
upon  the  question  of  Jesus'  significance,  empha- 
sizing on  the  one  side  his  pre-existence  and  on 
the  other  his  heavenly  exaltation,  nevertheless 
Jesus'  appearance  upon  earth  in  truly  human 
form,  the  lowliness  and  naturalness  of  his  life, 
and  his  submission  to  death  on  the  cross  are 
basal  historic  facts  without  which  Paul's 
interpretation  of  Jesus  would  have  been  im- 
possible. 

But  may  not  Paul  have  been  misled  by  his 
predecessors  in  the  new  faith,  and  so  have 
wrongly  imagined  that  they  spoke  of  an  earthly 
Jesus  ?  Notwithstanding  alleged  independence 
on  Paul's  part,  his  life  touched  that  of  the 
primitive  community  at  too  many  points  to 
allow  us  to  suppose  that  he  was  not  accurately 
acquainted  with  their  belief  on  this  point.  The 
evidence  of  this  contact  is  furnished  by  Paul's 
o\vn  letters,  and  this  testimony  is  all  the  more 
significant  because  it  comes  for  the  most  part 
from  a  time  when  his  relation  to  the  primitive 
church  was  being  taken  by  his  opponents  as 
prima  facie  proof  of  his  inferiority.  As  Paul 
tells  us,  before  his  conversion  he  had  perse- 
cuted the  Christians  most  bitterly,  a  fact  which 
implies    his    familiarity    with    their    life    and 


196  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

thought.  It  has  sometimes  been  inferred  that 
his  claim  to  have  ''seen  Jesus  our  Lord'"  and 
his  incidental  remark  to  the  Corinthians  that 
"we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh "^  are 
proof  that  he  had  actually  seen  the  earthly 
Jesus.^  This  of  course  is  not  intrinsically 
impossible,  but  Paul  will  hardly  have  claimed 
authentication  for  his  apostleship  (I  Cor.  9:1) 
from  acquaintance  with  Jesus  at  that  time; 
while  "we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh" 
may  imply  no  more  than  such  knowledge  of 
Christ's  earthly  career  as  Christians  in  general 
possess. 

Paul's  first  friendly  contact  with  the  early 
followers  of  Jesus  was  probably  in  Damascus. 
There  he  seems  to  have  remained  for  some  time, 
in  association  with  those  Christians  who  had 
previously  been  prominent  enough  to  attract 
his  attention  as  a  persecutor.  Then  followed  his 
first  journey  to  Jerusalem,  where  for  two  weeks 
he  visited  with  Peter  in  particular  and  the  Jeru- 
salem church  in  general.  When  later  he  moved 
on  into  the  regions  of  "Syria  and  Cilicia"  his 
connections  with    the  Palestinian   community 

■I  Cor.  9:1.  'II  Cor.  5:16. 

3  J.  Weiss,  in  his  Paulits  und  Jesus  (Berlin,  1909;  English  tr., 
Paul  and  Jesus,  London  and  New  York,  1909),  contends  vigor- 
ously for  this  interpretation  of  II  Cor.  5:16. 


The  Pauline  Evidence  197 

were  by  no  means  entirely  severed.  The  Judean 
churches  learned  of  and  rejoiced  in  his  work. 
Later  he  was  associated  in  missionary  activity 
with  Barnabas  who  seems  to  have  been  inti- 
mately connected  with  the  first  disciples.  Then 
Silas,  another  member  of  the  early  Jerusalem 
church,  became  Paul's  traveling  companion.  The 
Jerusalem  council  and  Peter's  visit  to  Antioch 
again  brought  Paul  into  intimate  contact  with 
those  who  had  known  Jesus  personally.  John 
Mark,  whom  tradition  connects  so  closely  with 
Palestine,  was  also  Paul's  fellow-worker  at  a 
later  date.  With  these  individuals  of  note, 
and  a  host  of  others  unknown  to  us  by  name, 
Paul  came  into  most  intimate  contact,  a  con- 
tact which  must  not  only  have  given  him  an 
intimate  acquaintance  with  the  early  tradition, 
but  which  must  also  have  made  it  impossible 
for  him  to  mistake  a  primitive  doctrine  about 
an  anthropomorphized  god  for  belief  in  the 
actual  existence  of  a  historical  individual. 

We  must  admit  that  Paul  stood  too  near  to 
the  age  which  professed  to  know  Jesus,  to  be 
successfully  hoodwinked  on  the  historical  ques- 
tion. If  Jesus  never  lived  it  is  not  at  all  prob- 
able that  even  the  most  enterprising  propa- 
gandists could  have  succeeded  in  persuading 


1 98  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Paul  of  the  reality  of  this  mythical  person 
within  the  generation  to  which  Paul  himself 
belonged.  But  another  possibility  presents 
itself.  Did  he  not  deliberately  create  this 
historical  character  to  suit  his  own  scheme  of 
interpretation;  instead  of  being  deceived  was 
he  not  playing  the  part  of  a  myth-maker? 
The  absence  from  his  letters  of  any  effort  to 
argue  for  the  historicity  of  Jesus,  which  would 
surely  be  a  matter  of  dispute  at  least  with  the 
opponents  of  Christianity,  together  with  the 
prevailing  acknowledgment  that  a  historical 
person  had  been  known  by  certain  leaders  of 
the  new  movement  before  Paul's  conversion, 
seems  an  overwhelming  objection  to  this  sup- 
position. Not  only  does  Paul  everywhere  take 
for  granted  the  existence  of  a  Jesus  whose 
memory  is  fresh  in  men's  minds,  but  a  good 
part  of  his  attention  is  given  to  resisting  op- 
ponents who  claim  superiority  over  him  because 
they  have  been,  or  have  received  their  commis- 
sion from  men  who  had  been,  personal  com- 
panions of  Jesus — a  fact  which  Paul  never 
denies,  though  he  disputes  the  legitimacy  of 
the  inference  regarding  superiority  which  they 
deduce  from  the  fact.  Paul  would  scarcely 
have  engaged  so  seriously  in  the  controversy 


The  Pauline  Evidence  199 

with  the  legalists,  or  have  had  so  much  anxiety 
for  the  possible  outcome  of  the  Judaizers'  efforts 
to  undo  his  work  on  gentile  soil,  if  the  chief 
credential  of  the  "pillars,"  namely,  their  claim  to 
have  known  Jesus  personally,  was  all  a  fiction. 
Another  important  fact,  bearing  upon  the 
present  problem,  has  been  brought  out  by  the 
recent  Paul  versus  Jesus  controversy.  We  can 
no  longer  treat  Paul  as  a  theologian  only,  nor 
was  his  Christianity  merely  an  elaborate  scheme 
of  dogma.  Beside  these  we  must  place  Paul 
the  religious  individual,  and  the  Christian  life 
of  personal  piety  in  which  the  apostle  and  his 
predecessors  share  a  common  heritage  from 
Jesus'  own  personal  life.'  Indeed  in  the  pious 
life  of  Jesus'  first  disciples  may  Paul  have  seen 
for  the  first  time  the  demonstration  of  that 
power  which  ultimately  conquered  his  Phari- 
sean  hatred  and  won  the  devotion  of  his  heart 
and  life.  To  cite  Wellhausen,  whom  the 
radicals  are  fond  of  quoting  as  a  champion  of 
skepticism  in  matters  of  gospel  criticism: 

Jesus  continued  to  live  not  only  in  the  dogma  but 
also  in  the  ethics  of  his  community,  and  their  pious  life 
in  imitation  of  him  had  perhaps  even  more  attracting 

'Cf.  Jiilicher,  Paiihis  mid  Jesus  (Tubingen,  1907);  A.  Meyer, 
Wcr  hat  das  Clirislentiim  hegriindet,  Jesus  oder  Paulas?  (Tubin- 
gen, 1907);  J.  Weiss,  op.  cii. 


20O  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

power  than  the  preaching  about  the  crucified  and  risen 
one.  Before  this  one  appeared  to  him  at  Damascus, 
Paul  had,  no  doubt  from  the  impression  which  the 
persecuted  Christians  made  upon  him,  already  in  his 
heart  the  goad  against  which  he  was  vainly  trying  to 
kick.' 

From  all  these  data  we  are  able  to  deduce  but 
one  conclusion.  Not  only  is  Paul  a  genuine 
personality  who  strongly  impressed  himself 
upon  the  life  of  his  time,  and  some  of  whose 
thoughts  are  preserved  for  us  in  fragments  of 
correspondence  with  his  churches,  but  the 
historicity  of  Jesus  is  also  a  prerequisite  to 
Paul's  Christian  life  and  work.  WTiile  the 
apostle  freely  interpreted,  and  at  times  no 
doubt  greatly  idealized,  the  person  of  Jesus, 
there  never  was  a  time  when  to  deny  the  reality 
of  Jesus'  earthly  career  would  not  have  been  a 
fatal  shock  to  Paul's  entire  interpretative 
scheme.  But  such  a  disaster  was  in  that  day 
out  of  the  question,  for  the  age  to  which  Paul 
belonged  held  the  generation  which  had  wit- 
nessed the  career  of  Jesus  and  had  experienced 
the  force  of  his  personality  in  its  own  life. 
Consequently  his  personal  conduct  became  the 
model  and  the  inspiration  for  conduct  in  the 
new  community.     Nor  was  this  influence  con- 

'  Einleilung  in  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien  (Berlin,  1905,  p.  114). 


The  Pauline  Evidence  201 

fined  to  those  who  had  associated  with  him 
on  earth;  it  was  felt  by  future  converts,  of 
whom  Paul  was  a  conspicuous  example.  He 
strenuously  emulated  this  type  of  life  himself 
and  strove  constantly  to  inculcate  it  among 
the  new  converts  to  the  faith.  His  exhortation 
to  the  Corinthians,  in  speaking  against  the  self- 
seeking  spirit,  "be  ye  imitators  of  me  even  as 
I  also  am  of  Christ,'"  is  expressive  of  that  spirit 
of  service  for  "the  profit  of  the  many"  which 
characterized  Christianity  from  the  first,  and 
which  was  consistently  traced  back  to  the  life 
of  its  founder  who,  on  calling  disciples,  had  not 
offered  them  enticing  rewards,  but  had  given 
them  an  opportunity  to  become  fishers  of  men, 
and  had  inspired  them  with  the  ideal  of  self- 
giving  service:  "Whosoever  would  become 
great  among  you  shall  be  your  minister,  and 
whosoever  would  be  first  among  you  shall  be 
servant  of  all." 

'I  Cor.  II :  I. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE  GOSPEL  EVIDENCE  FOR  JESUS' 
EXISTENCE 

It  is  self-evident  that  the  gospels,  in  their 
account  of  Jesus,  purport  to  portray  the  career 
of  a  historical  individual.  It  is  equally  clear 
that  the  primitive  assembly  of  belie\'ers,  as 
described  in  the  Book  of  Acts,  included  indi- 
viduals who  had  been  personally  associated 
with  Jesus  during  his  life  upon  earth.  As  the 
horizon  widens  to  take  in  growing  missionary 
activities,  the  opinions  of  those  leaders  who  had 
kno^vn  the  earthly  Jesus  become,  because  of 
their  connection  with  him,  a  norm  for  measur- 
ing Christian  doctrine  and  practice.  Through- 
out these  writings  the  reality  of  Jesus'  existence 
seems  to  be  a  fundamental  presupposition. 
Are  we  to  treat  this  as  a  genuine  representation, 
or  may  it  appear  on  closer  inspection  that  the 
figure  of  Jesus  fades  out  when  brought  into  the 
brighter  light  of  critical  scrutiny  ?  It  should 
be  remembered  that  our  imm.ediate  aim  is  not 
to  determine  the  full  content  of  reliable  informa- 
tion about  Jesus,  but  only  to  ask  whether  these 


The  Gospel  Evidence  203 

writings  testify  at  all  reliably  to  the  bare  fact 
of  his  existence. 

The  radicals  uniformly  contend  that  these 
documents  are  practically  worthless  witnesses 
on  these  questions.  Or,  in  so  far  as  their 
testimony  is  reliable,  it  even  favors  a  denial  of 
Jesus'  historicity.  Already  we  have  remarked 
that  this  opinion  is  not  defended  by  extensive 
argument  but  is  affirmed  almost  as  though  it 
were  an  indisputable  fact.  This  treatment  of 
the  subject  gives  no  adequate  idea  of  the  actual 
results  of  modern  gospel  criticism.  Although 
many  perplexing  questions  have  been  raised, 
and  much  uncertainty  is  still  felt  regarding 
some  items  in  the  tradition,  critical  study  has 
not  itself  reached  the  extreme  of  skepticism 
represented  by  the  modern  radicals.  They, 
however,  assert  that  the  critics  fail  to  push 
their  results  to  a  logical  conclusion,  which  would 
mean,  it  is  said,  that  the  gospels  and  Acts  would 
not  be  given  any  historical  recognition.  Not 
only  are  these  works  held  to  be  tendency  writ- 
ings throughout,  but  the  date  of  their  composi- 
tion is  brought  down  so  late  that  any  connection 
with  the  actual  history  of  a  Jesus  who  is  sup- 
posed to  have  lived  in  the  first  quarter  of  the  first 
century  a.d.  becomes  altogether  problematic. 


204  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

The  gospels  themselves,  it  is  true,  do  not 
explicitly  state  the  date  of  their  origin,  nor  do 
they  define  the  situation  to  which  they  belong. 
Only  in  the  case  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  is  any 
indication  of  authorship  given,  and  even  there 
it  stands  in  the  appendix.'  In  these  respects 
the  gospels  are  in  sharp  contrast  with  the  usual 
style  of  pseudepigraphic  writings.  Everything 
indicates  that  they  appeared  as  perfectly 
ingenuous  works  whose  claim  to  a  hearing 
rested  upon  the  supposed  truthfulness  and 
serviceability  of  their  contents.  Not  until 
tradition  labeled  them  wath  apostolic  or  near- 
apostolic  names,  and  invested  them  with  a 
unique  dignity,  did  the  notion  of  an  authorita- 
tive gospel  literature  arise.  WTien  once  this 
happened,  the  soil  was  prepared  for  a  crop  of 
pseudepigraphic  writings  whose  authors  thought 
to  win  a  hearing  for  their  opinions  by  putting 
them  forth  in  the  assumed  garb  of  apostolic 
tradition.  It  is  a  striking  testimony  to  the 
relatively  early  date  of  our  canonical  gospels 
that  they  are  so  free  from  the  earmarks  of 
pseudepigraphy.  Today  it  may  seem  a  great 
misfortune  that  they  do  not  bear  definite  self- 
attestation  to  their  author  and  date,  yet  we 
may  console  ourselves  with  the  thought  that 

' 21:24. 


The  Gospel  Evidence  205 

this  very  lack  shows  them  to  have  been  pioneers, 
belonging  to  that  formative  period  of  Chris- 
tianity when  the  things  of  which  they  speak 
were  more  or  less  common  property  and  did 
not  need  any  artificial  authentication. 

As  to  the  exact  dates  of  the  several  gospels, 
the  testimony  of  early  Christian  writers  is  not 
so  explicit  as  it  is  for  Paul's  epistles — a  fact 
which  seems  to  imply  a  later  date  for  the  rise 
of  the  gospel  literature.  Moreover  the  internal 
indicia,  which  in  Paul's  letters  enable  one  to 
fix  dates  and  places  with  comparative  certainty, 
are  almost  entirely  lacking  in  the  gospels. 
Yet  both  external  and  internal  testimony  yields 
some  substantial  results  regarding  the  time  and 
manner  of  their  origin.  Thereby  they  become 
possible  witnesses  to  the  life  and  work  of  a 
historical  Jesus. 

In  the  last  quarter  of  the  second  century 
several  writers  of  unquestionable  reliability  bear 
united  testimony  to  the  existence  of  the  gospels, 
and  also  to  the  high  esteem  in  which  they  had 
come  to  be  held.  Irenaeus'  testimony  on  this 
point   is  very   clear,"  and   in   the  Muratorian 

'  It  seems  superfluous  to  cite  references  in  detail,  since  these 
arc  usually  given  in  full  in  works  on  the  origin  of  the  New 
Testament;  e.g.,  Stanton,  The  Gospels  as  Historical  Documents. 
Part  I  (New  York,  1904). 


2o6  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

Canon  the  four  gospels  were  evidently  enumer- 
ated at  the  beginning  of  the  list  of  New  Testa- 
ment books.  About  the  same  time  Tatian 
incorporated  them  into  his  Diatessaron,  and 
the  Sinaitic  Syriac  translation  is  also  commonly 
assigned  to  this  same  period.  Papias'  oft- 
quoted  remarks  about  Matthew  and  Mark  are 
of  still  earlier  date.  Justin  Martyr,  writing  in 
the  middle  of  the  century,  makes  extensive  use 
of  gospel  language  and  speaks  of  "memoirs" 
written  by  apostles.  He  specifies  memoirs  of 
Peter,  but  is  not  more  definite  on  the  question 
of  the  gospels'  origin.  It  may  be  that  tradition 
had  not  yet  fully  fixed  itself  in  this  matter,  or 
possibly  Justin  assumed  that  his  readers  would 
have  no  interest  in  these  details.  Marcion  used 
the  Third  Gospel,  and  presumably  knew  the 
others.  Certainly  Ignatius  and  Poly  carp  were 
familiar  with  evangelic  tradition,  though  they 
make  no  definite  mention  of  an  individual 
gospel.  Clement  of  Rome,  on  two  occasions, 
cites  teachings  of  Jesus  which  resemble  gospel 
language  but  which  are  not  sufficiently  exact  to 
be  taken  for  quotations.  From  this  survey  it 
is  clear  that  the  gospels  were  in  existence  before 
the  close  of  the  second  century.  They  had, 
moreover,    attained    the    status    of    canonical 


The  Gospel  Evidence  207 

literature,  and  had  even  been  given  first  place 
in  the  New  Testament  collection. 

This  may  not  seem  to  carry  us  far  toward 
establishing  their  reliability  as  witnesses  for 
events  in  the  first  three  decades  of  the  first 
century.  But  we  are  not  to  imagine  that  the 
above  data  convey  any  adequate  idea  of  the 
actual  extent  to  which  tradition  about  Jesus 
was  known  and  used  in  the  first  half  of  the 
second  century.  The  external  evidence  now 
known  to  us  pertains  more  particularly  to  the 
history  of  the  gospels'  rise  to  prominence  than 
to  the  fact  of  their  existence.  Since  they  had 
not  been  issued  under  the  egis  of  any  special 
authority,  it  was  only  gradually  that  they  won 
their  way  to  general  recognition.  We  remem- 
ber that  Ignatius  encountered  Christians  who 
were  unwilling  to  accept  any  written  authorities 
except  the  "charters,"  seemingly  meaning  the 
Old  Testament,  yet  these  individuals  were 
doubtless  acquainted  with  all  the  essentials  of 
gospel  tradition  as  commonly  repeated  and 
interpreted  in  public  preaching  and  teaching. 
Their  demurrer  is  not  a  rejection  of  gospel 
tradition  but  a  hesitation  about  placing  any 
writing  on  a  plane  with  the  Old  Testament  as 
"Scripture."    Thus  it  appears  that  the  scanti- 


2o8  l^he  Hisloricily  of  Jesus 

ness  of  reference  to  the  gospels  in  the  early 
second  century  is  no  fair  measure  of  the 
probability  or  improbability  of  their  existence 
at  that  time. 

The  fact  seems  to  be  that  many  persons  in 
this  period  prized  oral  tradition  above  written 
records,  probably  because  the  oral  teaching 
represented  not  only  essentially  everything 
contained  in  the  gospels,  but  being  more  fluid 
in  character  it  was  more  easily  adapted  to 
individual  needs  and  local  conditions,  Papias 
is  reported  to  have  said  that  in  his  youth  he  did 
not  think  he  could  derive  so  much  profit  from 
the  contents  of  books  as  from  "the  utterance 
of  a  living  and  abiding  voice."  In  the  first 
quarter  of  the  second  century  men  were  still 
living  who  had  been  personal  associates  of  the 
apostles,  and  as  tradition  probably  had  not 
yet  officially  stamped  the  gospels  with  apostolic 
authority,  it  was  not  surprising  that  the  "living 
and  abiding  voice"  in  the  first  generation  after 
the  apostles  should  have  been  more  generally 
popular  than  written  records  which  had  origi- 
nally been  designed  for  some  given  set  of  local 
circumstances.  But  as  time  passed  the  'Voice" 
became  silent  and  the  written  word  was  allowed 
to    speak.     Marcion,    by    differentiating    the 


The  Gospel  Evidence  209 

notion  of  authoritative  Christian  writings, 
probably  gave  added  stimulus  to  this  tendency, 
especially  since  Christianity  was  compelled  to 
wrest  its  valued  traditions  from  the  hands  of 
the  heretic.  At  any  rate,  from  Marcion's 
time  on  the  recognition  of  authoritativeness 
for  Christian  writings  is  much  more  pro- 
nounced than  in  the  previous  generation.  Had 
Marcion  come  a  half-century  earlier  we  might 
today  know  much  more  than  we  now  do 
about  the  early  existence  of  our  New  Testa- 
ment books. 

Early  tradition  does  in  reality  connect  the 
rise  of  the  gospels,  so  far  as  Mark  and  Matthew 
are  concerned,  very  closely  with  the  age  of 
Jesus.  According  to  Eusebius,  Papias,  in  his 
expositions  of  the  "sayings"  of  the  Lord, 
stated  on  the  authority  of  the  "Elder" : 

Mark,  having  become  the  interpreter  of  Peter, 
wrote  down  accurately  everything  that  he  remem- 
bered, without  however  recording  in  order  what  was 
either  said  or  done  by  Christ.  For  neither  did  he  hear 
the  Lord,  nor  did  he  follow  him;  but  afterward,  as  I 
said  [attended],  Peter  who  adapted  his  instructions  to 
the  needs  [of  his  hearers]  but  had  no  design  of  giving 
a  connected  account  of  the  Lord's  "sayings."  So  then 
Mark  made  no  mistake  while  he  thus  wrote  down 
some  things  as  he  remembered  them,  for  he  made  it 


2IO  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

his  one  care  not  to  omit  anything  that  he  heard,  or  to 
set  down  any  false  statement  therein.' 

Other  traditions  connect  the  writing  of  this 
gospel  with  Rome,  soon  after  Peter  is  supposed 
to  have  arrived  there,  or  else  after  his  death. 
All  this  testimony  implies  the  spread  of  Chris- 
tianity in  the  gentile  world  before  the  date  of 
Mark's  composition,  which  corresponds  with 
certain  data  in  this  gospel  indicating  that  the 
work  was  intended  for  non- Jewish  readers.'' 

Papias  says  further,  in  this  same  connection, 
that  "Matthew  composed  the  sayings  in  the 
Hebrew  language  and  each  one  interpreted 
them  as  he  could."  Matthew's  collection  of 
"sayings"  seems  to  be  identified  by  Eusebius 
with  the  Gospel  of  Matthew,  of  which  he  says: 
^'Matthew,  after  preaching  to  Hebrews,  when 
about  to  go  also  to  others,  committed  to 
writing  in  his  native  tongue  the  gospel  that 
bears  his  name,  and  so  by  his  writing  supplied 
to  those  whom  he  was  leaving  the  loss  of  his 
presence."^  Clement  of  Alexandria,  on  the 
authority  of  the  "Preaching  of  Peter,"  thinks 
the  apostles  did  not  leave  Palestine  until  twelve 

'Eusebius,  Ilisl.  Red.,  Ill,  39. 

'E.g.,  explanations  of  Jewish  terms,  places,  customs,  etc., 
3:17;  5:41;  7:2  ff.;  7:34;  10:46;  12:42;  13:3;  14:2,  32;  15:42. 
iHisl.  EccL,  III,  24. 


The  Gospel  Evidence  211 

years  after  Jesus'  death,  which  would  fix  the 
date  at  about  42  a.d.'  Accordmg  to  these 
witnesses  it  would  appear  that  the  First  Gospel 
was  originally  written  in  Hebrew  (or  Aramaic)^ 
by  the  apostle  Matthew  before  the  year  42 
A.D.  Thus  popular  tradition  placed  the  com- 
position of  Matthew,  or  at  least  a  Matthean 
collection  of  "sayings,"  at  an  early  date  and 
in  a  Palestinian  setting;  while  Mark's  Gospel 
was  thought  to  belong  to  a  slightly  later  date, 
but  yet  to  have  a  close  connection  with  the 
primitive  tradition  as  reported  by  Peter. 

The  more  specific  determination  of  the  time 
and  the  historical  connection  in  which  the  gospel 
materials  took  shape  depends  upon  a  close  study 
of  the  documents  themselves.  This  work  has 
gone  on  so  steadily  in  recent  years,  and  its  results 
are  so  generally  known,  that  the  main  points  in 
the  discussion,  and  the  present  status  of  opinion, 
may  be  summarized  very  briefly.^ 

^  Strom.,  VI,  5. 

'Probably  "Hebrew"  is  used  loosely  for  Aramaic,  the  lan- 
guage of  daily  life  among  the  Palestinian  Jews  in  Jesus'  day. 
The  term  is  so  used  in  Josephus,  War,  VI,  ii,  i  (cf.  Ant.,  Ill,  x,  6); 
and  the  proper  nouns  in  John  5:2;  19:13,  17,  though  called 
"Hebrew,"  show  the  Aramaic  form  in  the  ending. 

3  The  extensive  literature  on  this  subject  has  been  well  sum- 
marized by  such  representative  scholars  as  Moffatt,  Intro- 
diiction  to  the  Literature  of  the  New  Testament  (New  York,  191 1, 
pp.  177  ff.);    H.  Holtzmann,  "Die  Marcus-Kontroverse  in  ihrer 


212  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

A  comparative  examination  of  the  first  three 
gospels  shows  that  Mark  furnished  the  outline 
and  much  of  the  narrative  material  for  the 
other  two.  The  older  view,  that  Mark  was  a 
later  abbreviation  made  on  the  basis  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  is  now  all  but  universally  abandoned. 
The  Second  Gospel  is  unquestionably  one  of 
the  sources  employed  in  the  writing  of  the  First 
and  Third  Gospels.  Furthermore,  Matthew 
and  Luke  are  found  to  agree  very  closely  in 
several  passages  where  Mark  furnishes  no 
parallel.  On  the  other  hand,  their  numerous 
disagreements  with  one  another  make  it  improb- 
able that  Matthew  used  Luke,  and  vice  versa, 
They  sometimes  cover  the  same  period  with 
entirely  different  narratives,  as  in  the  accounts 
of  Jesus'  infancy;  they  often  set  parallel 
material  in  very  different  contexts,  a  fact 
illustrated  in  their  handling  of  the  "Sermon  on 
the  Mount";  and  they  usually  differ  in  their 
alterations  of,  or  additions  to,  their  common 
source  Mark.'     Evidently  they  availed  them- 

heutigen  Gestalt"  in  Archiv  fiir  Rcligionswissenschaft,'X  (1907), 
18-40,  161-200;  Loisy,  Les  ivangiles  syitoptiqucs  (Paris,  1907 
pp.  59-83).  Burkitt's  Gospel  History  and  lis  Transmission 
(Edinburgh,  1906)  is  an  illuminating  survey  of  the  problem 
itself.  Cf.  the  same  author's  The  Earliesl  Sources  for  Ihe  Life 
of  Jesus  (Boston  and  New  York,  1910). 

'It  is  true  that  sometimes  they  agree  against  Mark,  but 
these  agreements  are  relatively  so  few  that  they  are  too  frail  a 


The  Gospel  Evidence  213 

selves  of  some  common  source  of  information 
in  addition  to  Mark.  Unfortunately  this  is  no 
longer  extant,  and  efforts  to  reconstruct  it  from 
Matthew  and  Luke  have  not  thus  far  proved 
wholly  satisfactory,^  Yet  the  early  existence 
of  a  non-Markan  document  or  documents, 
largely  dealing  with  Jesus'  teachings,  and  used 

support,  in  the  opinion  of  most  scholars,  for  any  theory  of  mu- 
tual interdependence  between  Matthew  and  Luke.  The  agree- 
ments may  be  in  some  cases  accidental,  they  may  be  due  to 
transcriptional  assimilation,  or  the  form  of  Mark  used  may  have 
been  somewhat  different  from  our  canonical  version. 

'The  so-called  "two-document"  hypothesis,  which  regards 
]Mark  and  the  logia  as  the  principal  sources  of  the  Synoptic 
Gospels,  was  worked  out  in  its  essential  features  as  early  as  1838 
by  Weisse  {Die  evangelische  Gcschichte)  and  Wilke  {Der  Urevan- 
gelist),  but  it  did  not  win  any  general  acceptance  until  the  appear- 
ance of  H.  Holtzmann's  Synoptische  Evangelien  in  1863.  With 
slightly  varying  details  it  was  advocated  by  Weizsacker  in  1864 
and  B.  Weiss  in  1872.  Since  then  it  has  been  the  dominant 
theory,  especially  in  Germany.  But  the  non-Markan  source  is 
still  much  discussed.  It  is  now  commonly  referred  to  as  Q 
{Quelle)  rather  than  logia,  in  order  to  avoid  prejudging  its  con- 
tent, about  which  there  is  still  much  uncertaint3^  Burton 
{Principles  of  Literary  Criticism  and  the  Synoptic  Problem,  Chi- 
cago, 1904)  assigns  the  material  to  three  documents:  (i)  the 
logia  of  Papias,  (2)  an  account  of  the  Perean  ministry,  and  (3) 
a  Galilean  source;  while  other  minor  sources  supplied  other 
material  peculiar  to  Matthew  or  to  Luke.  Harnack  {Spriiche 
und  Reden  Jesii,  Leipzig,  1907)  prefers  the  theory  of  a  single 
document,  brief  in  compass.  B.  Weiss  {Die  Quellen  der  synop- 
tischen  Ueberlieferung,  Leipzig,  1908),  as  on  former  occasions, 
claims  a  more  comprehensive  content  for  Q.  The  algebraic  X 
would  seem  to  be  a  still  more  appropriate  designation  for  this 
source  material,  as  then  we  should  not  have  to  commit  our- 
selves to  Quelle  as  against  Quellen  —  a  point  on  which  there  is 
still  room  for  differences  of  opinion  (cf.  Luke  1:2  f.). 


214  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

in  common  by  the  writers  of  Matthew  and 
Luke,  is  now  taken  by  most  scholars  to  be  an 
estabHshed  fact. 

These  results  make  it  evident  that  we  can- 
not identify  our  Gospel  of  Matthew  with  the 
Matthean  treatise  referred  to  by  Papias.  Our 
book  does  not  bear  the  earmarks  of  a  transla- 
tion. In  its  present  form  it  was  originally  a 
Greek  composition  which  in  many  places  was 
copied  word  for  word  from  the  Greek  of  Mark. 
This  dependence  upon  Mark  also  necessitates 
a  new  dating  for  Matthew,  as  compared  with 
the  date  42  a.d,,  suggested  by  early  tradition. 
Since  Papias  seemed  to  think  Mark  appeared 
subsequently  to  Matthew's  collection  of  sayings, 
it  has  commonly  been  assumed  in  recent  times 
that  Papias  assigned  to  the  apostle  Matthew 
some  such  early  source  as  we  find  used  in 
Matthew  and  Luke,  in  additon  to  Mark.^ 
However  this  may  be,  the  existence  of  this 
document,  or  of  similar  collections  of  early 
Christian  tradition,  is  an  unquestionable  con- 
clusion, even  if  we  were  dependent  upon 
Matthew  and  Luke  alone  for  its  substantiation. 

'  He  may,  however,  have  been  thinking  about  our  Matthew 
but  applied  to  il  the  tradition  about  the  other  work  which,  even 
if  any  longer  extant,  may  not  have  come  under  his  personal 
observation. 


The  Gospel  Evidence  215 

Thus  the  genetic  units  of  synoptic  tradition 
are:  (i)  The  Gospel  of  Mark,  mainly  con- 
cerned with  a  narrative  of  Jesus'  career,  and 
(2)  other  tradition  which  did  not  necessarily 
ignore  Jesus'  deeds  but  which  was  especially 
interested  in  reporting  his  teaching.  Although 
many  details  are  still  uncertain,  it  is  certainly 
hyper-skepticism  to  maintain  that  we  have  not 
a  fairly  clear  idea  of  this  stage  in  the  literary 
history  of  the  gospels. 

How  near  do  these  results  bring  us  to  the 
Jesus  of  history?  The  fact  that  Mark  is  a 
source  for  Matthew  and  Luke,  the  explicit 
statement  in  Acts  i :  i  that  this  work  is  a  sequel 
to  the  Third  Gospel,  and  the  belief  now  current 
that  the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  was 
acquainted  with  the  Synoptics,  supplies  the 
relative  chronological  scheme  for  thinking  of 
the  rise  of  this  literature.  Since  Mark  stands 
at  the  beginning,  and  the  non-Markan  source 
of  Matthew  and  Luke  seems  to  be  earlier  than 
Mark,'  the  justice  of  gospel  tradition's  claim 

'Wellhausen  holds  the  contrary  opinion,  but  dates  Mark 
about  50  A.D.,  which  still  allows  a  relatively  early  date  for  "Q. " 
Harnack  would  have  us  believe  that  "Q,"  and  Mark,  and  Luke- 
Acts  were  all  written  before  Paul's  death,  but  the  view  is  as  yet 
too  purely  hypothetical  to  be  used  in  this  connection  (Neue 
Unkrsuchungcn  ziir  Aposlelgeschichlc  und  zur  Abfassungszcil  der 
synoptischen  Evangelien,  Leipzig,  191 1;  so  also  Koch,  Die  Abfas- 


2i6  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

to  be  heard  in  testimony  for  Jesus'  existence 
will  depend  ultimately  upon  whether  these 
earliest  elements  in  the  tradition  may  reason- 
ably be  assigned  to  a  time  and  a  situation  in 
which  personal  knowledge  of  a  historical  Jesus 
was  possible. 

WTiile  there  are  still  differences  of  opinion 
about  the  exact  dates  of  the  several  gospels, 
critical  scholarship  of  today  agrees  on  placing 
them  within  fairly  well-defined  limits.  The 
last  thirty-five  years  of  the  first  century  is  the 
general  period  in  which  the  composition  of  the 
Synoptic  Gospels  and  Acts  is  commonly  placed. 
Our  immediate  concern  is  with  Mark.  Irenaeus* 
says  this  gospel  was  written  in  Rome  after  the 
death  of  Peter  and  Paul,  but  whether  this 
statement  rests  upon  a  reliable  tradition,  or  is 
merely  Irenaeus'  interpretation  of  the  vaguer 
testimony  of  Papias,  is  uncertain.  Similar 
uncertainty  attaches  to  the  tradition  that  Rome 

sungszeii  des  lukanisclten  Geschichtswerkes,  Leipzig,  191 1).  Many 
are  of  the  opinion,  however,  that  Mark  may  embody  some  earlier 
source  materials.  Cf.  J.  Weiss,  Das  dllcsle  Evangelium  (Got- 
tingen,  1903);  '^\u\\ex,Geschichtskcnie  in  den  EvangcUcn  (Giessen, 
1905);  Wendling,  Urmarcus  (Tiibingen,  1905)  and  Die  Entsleliugn 
des  Marcus-Evan geliums  (Tubingen,  1908);  Bacon,  The  Begin- 
nings of  Gospel  Story  (New  Haven,  1909);  cf.  also  Loisy,  op. 
lit.,  pp.  85  f. 

'Ilacr.,  Ill,  i,i. 


The  Gospel  Evidence  217 

was  the  place  of  composition.  More  specific 
evidence  for  the  dating  must  be  sought  in  the 
gospel  itself,  and  this  is  found  in  chap.  13. 
Here  Jesus  is  credited  by  the  author  (or  by  his 
source)  with  predicting  in  emphatic  terms  the 
end  of  the  world  in  Jesus'  own  generation 
(13:30  f.;  cf.  9:1).  Would  a  tradition  of  this 
sort  be  put  into  circulation /^r  the  first  time  after 
everybody  who  had  been  of  Jesus'  own  genera- 
tion was  dead  ?  A  writer  would  not  be  likely 
to  invent  for  Jesus  a  saying  which  history  in  the 
writer's  own  day  had  shown  to  be  false.  A 
later  editor  or  transcriber  might  preserve  such 
a  tradition,  either  unconscious  of  its  incongruity, 
or  because  he  felt  it  could  be  explained  by  some 
device  of  interpretation,  but  he  would  not 
create  it  de  novo  unless  he  wished  to  disparage 
the  individual  of  whom  he  was  writing — an 
inconceivable  thing  for  a  Christian  biographer 
of  Jesus  to  do.  This  prophecy  about  the  end 
must,  therefore,  represent  either  an  original 
saying  of  Jesus,  or  a  saying  first  ascribed  to  him 
while  certain  of  his  own  associates  were  still 
alive.  In  either  case  it  presupposes  a  close 
connection  chronologically  between  Jesus  and 
the  framers  of  the  tradition. 
Another  noticeable  feature  of  this  thirteenth 


2i8  The  II  is  I  or  icily  of  Jesus 

chapter  of  Mark  is  a  cautioning  against  mis- 
taking certain  tragic  happenings  for  the  actual 
approach  of  the  ultimate  catastrophe,  which 
would  bring  the  present  world-order  to  a  close. 
Preliminary  to  the  final  disaster  there  was  to 
be  a  season  of  great  tribulation,  the  like  of 
which  the  world  had  never  seen  before.  Wliat 
historic  occasion  corresponds  to  these  dire 
events,  when  the  people  of  Judea  will  need  to 
flee  to  the  mountains  and  when  messianic 
pretenders  will  endeavor  to  obtain  a  following 
among  Christians?  Evidently  the  siege  and 
fall  of  Jerusalem  (66-70  a.d.),  described  while 
the  fall  is  yet  imminent,  or  soon  after  the  event. 
And  how  closely  does  the  end  of  all  things 
follow  upon  these  preliminary  happenings  ? 
The  end  seemingly  is  not  far  off.  The  gospel 
is  first  to  be  preached  to  all  the  nations,'  yet 
the  end  is  coming  "in  those  days,  after  that 
tribulation,"  and  "this  generation  shall  not 
pass  away  until  all  these  things  be  accom- 
plished." Thus  the  composition  of  Mark  must 
fall  near  the  year  70  a.d.  Wliether  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem  is  a  matter  of  the  near  future 
or   of   the   immediate   past   may   be   thought 

'  This  need  imply  no  lengthy  period,  for  we  recall  that  Paul 
conceived  this  task  to  have  been  accomplished,  so  far  as  the 
eastern  world  \vas  concerned,  before  60  a.d.  (Rom.  15:19-23). 


The  Gospel  Evidence  219 

questionable,  but  in  either  case  the  Markan 
tradition  comes  from  an  age  when  some  per- 
sonal followers  of  Jesus  were  still  alive.  And  if 
this  is  true  for  Mark,  it  will  be  granted  without 
question  for  the  primitive  non-Markan  source- 
material  incorporated  in  Matthew  and  Luke. 

Futhermore,  a  glance  at  the  content  of  the 
early  gospel  narratives  shows  a  genuine  Jewish 
background  and  a  Palestinian  setting  for  the 
earliest  elements  of  the  tradition.^  Even  in  the 
Greek  of  our  present  gospels  there  are  occasion- 
ally very  clear  traces  of  the  original  Aramaic 
speech  in  which  the  tradition  first  circulated. 
In  this  connection  may  be  mentioned  Paul's 
marana  tha,  abba,  and  amen,  and  the  gospel 
terms  amen  (verily),  talitha  cumi,  ephphatha, 
and  eloi,  eloi,  lama  sabachthani.  Aramaic  idioms 
are  also  discernible.^  A  conspicuous  example 
is  seen  in  ofxoXoyelv  iu  ifioL,^  as  strange  to 
Greek  as  the  corresponding  "confess  in  me"  is 
to  English.  A  genuinely  Jewish  type  of  thought 
also  pervades  the  atmosphere  in  which  Jesus' 
activity   is   set.     Mosaic   ritual   and   rabbinic 

'  Cf.  Burkitt,  The  Earliest  Sources  for  the  Life  of  Jesus,  pp. 
13-29. 

'Cf.  Wellhausen's  important  contribution  to  this  subject, 
Einleilung  in  die  drei  ersten  Evangelien,  pp.  14  ff. 

3  Matt.  10:325  Luke_i2:8. 


220  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

practice  are  crucial  problems,  the  Jews'  constant 
chafing  under  the  yoke  of  Rome  is  often 
evident,  and  some  of  the  most  extended  reports 
of  Jesus'  teaching  pertain  to  the  Jewish  mes- 
sianic hope.  These  are  the  main  features  of 
the  thought  which  Jesus  is  pictured  as  encoun- 
tering. But  outside  Palestine  these  peculiar 
topics  had  no  vital  interest,  and  we  find  the 
author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  so  far  }delding  to 
the  demand  for  a  less  local  portrayal  of  Jesus' 
career  as  to  omit  almost  entirely  these  items 
of  the  primitive  tradition.  Jiilicher  seems 
quite  within  the  proper  bounds  when,  in 
summing  up  the  results  of  modern  critical 
study,  he  says  of  primitive  tradition:  ''The 
gospel  was  virtually  completed  in  the  home  of 
Jesus  even  before  his  generation  passed  away, 
and  believing  Jews  wrote  it  down  at  that  time 
in  their  own  language."^ 

For  those  who  will  treat  evidence  of  this  sort 
seriously,  some  substantial  conclusions  regard- 
ing the  value  of  the  gospels  as  sources  for  a 
knowledge  of  Jesus'  existence  are  at  once 
available.  The  Gospel  of  Mark,  though  com- 
posed somewhat  later  than  the  epistles  of  Paul, 

'  Neue  Liiiicn  in  dcr  Kriiik  dcr  cvangelischcn  Ucberliefcrung 
(Giessen,  1906,  p.  73). 


The  Gospel  Evidence  221 

belongs  near  enough  to  Jesus'  own  day  to  come 
within  the  lifetime  of  some  of  the  original 
disciples;  while  the  more  extended  reports  of 
Jesus'  teaching  now  found  in  Matthew  and 
Luke  seem  unquestionably  to  have  been  derived 
from  common  written  tradition  whose  com- 
position very  probably  antedates  that  of  Mark. 
That  is,  the  kernel  of  synoptic  tradition  took 
shape  in  the  land  of  Jesus'  birth  and  among  his 
own  countrymen,  and  dates  from  the  same 
general  period  as  Paul's  letters,  when  the  new 
religious  movement  was  being  propagated  under 
the  guidance  of  leaders  who  claimed  to  trace, 
either  directly  or  indirectly,  their  authority  as 
well  as  their  inspiration  to  a  period  of  personal 
association  with  an  earthly  Jesus. 

What  is  to  be  said  of  the  validity  of  their 
claim  to  know  a  historical  Jesus?  It  is  clear 
from  our  previous  survey  of  the  circumstances 
under  which  the  gospel  literature  arose  that  its 
early  framers  could  no  more  have  been  deceived 
than  could  Paul  on  the  question  of  the  actual 
existence  of  Jesus.  On  this  point  they  are 
either  reliable  historians  or  else  they  are 
mythologizers.  When  the  primitive  tradition 
is  found  to  be  traceable  to  the  same  generation 
which  claims  to  have  known  Jesus,  the  only 


222  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

course  left  open  to  the  radicals  is  to  urge  that 
the  gospels  are  tendency  writings,  theological 
treatises,  aiming  to  present  an  interpretation 
of  Jesus  and  not  scrupling  to  create — ^perhaps 
we  should  say  being  under  the  necessity  of 
creating — "Jesus"  to  give  concrete  embodiment 
to  doctrine. 

It  is  true  that  students  nowadays  recognize 
the  presence  of  many  interpretative  features  in 
the  gospel  narratives,  but  the  proposal  to 
eliminate  Jesus'  historical  reality  from  this 
interpretation  encounters  serious  obstacles.  In 
the  first  place,  the  most  realistic  representation 
of  Jesus  is  found  not  in  the  later  stages  of 
tradition  but  in  its  earliest  features.  It  is 
Mark  who  says  that  Jesus  was  not  able  to  do 
any  mighty  work  in  Nazareth  except  to  heal  a 
few  sick  people  by  laying  his  hands  on  them, 
while  in  Matthew  the  statement  is  simply  "he 
did  not  do  many  mighty  works  there.'"  In 
Mark  too  he  refuses  to  be  called  "good,"  while 
in  Matthew  the  conversation  concerns  "what 
good  thing"  the  young  man  shall  do  in  order 
to  have  eternal  life.^  Again  in  the  primitive 
non-Markan  tradition  Jesus  is  chiefly  a  teacher 

•Mark  6:5;  Malt.  13:58. 

'Mark  10: 17  f.;  Matt.  19:16  f.;  Luke  18:18  f. 


The  Gospel  Evidence  223 

rather  than  a  miracle-worker.  In  the  temp- 
tation incident  he  begins  his  career  by  dehber- 
ately  setting  aside  the  idea  of  miraculous 
display  as  a  means  of  self-attestation.  Thus 
this  early  type  of  interpretation  still  reflects 
the  prevailingly  normal  character  of  Jesus' 
actions,  although  the  ardor  of  later  faith  in  his 
heavenly  lordship  made  it  necessary  to  explain 
why  so  significant  an  individual  had  not  lived 
a  more  striking  and  outwardly  brilliant  career 
on  earth.  Believers  could  not  fail  to  feel  that 
Jesus  had  possessed  unique  power,  hence  he 
must  have  deliberately  refrained  from  its  use. 
But  as  time  removed  the  memory  of  his 
earthly  life  farther  into  the  past,  more  and 
more  stress  was  placed  upon  actual  demon- 
strations of  his  unique  power.  Thus  in  Mark 
he  figures  pre-eminently  from  the  beginning  of 
his  career  as  a  worker  of  miracles;  yet  Mark  is 
still  sufficiently  under  the  influence  of  the  earlier 
tradition  to  remember  that  this  was  not  an  open 
sign  of  Jesus'  uniqueness  but  only  a  hidden 
one;  that  is,  the  significance  of  Jesus'  conduct 
had  not  been  understood  at  the  time  even  by 
the  disciples.  Mark  also  records  that  Jesus 
refused  to  give  an  open  sign  when  pressed  to 
do  so,  but  on  turning  to  Matthew  and  Luke 


224  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

we  find  this  refusal  relieved  by  the  modifying 
phrase,  "except  the  sign  of  Jonah."  This  is 
naturally  taken  by  Matthew  to  be  a  reference 
to  Jesus'  resurrection,  the  event  which  had 
served  as  the  great  initial  and  transforming  sign 
for  the  faith  of  the  first  believers.  In  the 
Fourth  Gospel  Jesus  takes  pains  to  display  a 
long  series  of  signs  to  attest  his  uniqueness,  the 
culminating  event  being  the  resurrection  of 
Lazarus.  In  its  earliest  stages  gospel  tradition 
had  by  no  means  shaken  itself  free  from  the 
restraining  influence  of  the  meniory  of  Jesus  as 
a  historical  individual,  and  only  in  course  of 
time  did  his  normal  earthly  features  become  less 
distinct  as  they  were  increasingly  overshadowed 
by  the  heavenly  image  upon  which  his  devoted 
followers  loved  to  gaze. 

Especially  important,  as  evidence  for  the 
existence  of  Jesus,  is  Mark's  almost  uniform 
representation  that  Jesus  during  his  lifetime 
was  generally  misunderstood,  even  by  his 
closest  associates.  The  members  of  his  own 
family  thought  him  beside  himself,  and  even 
the  Twelve  showed  a  remarkable  dulness  on 
nearly  every  occasion  when  his  uniqueness 
might,  seemingly,  easily  be  perceived.  When 
he  was  about  to  feed  the  four  thousand  the 


The  Gospel  Evidence  225 

disciples  were  as  unsuspecting  of  the  method 
he  was  to  employ  as  if  they  had  not,  only  a 
short  time  before,  witnessed  his  miraculous 
feeding  of  the  five  thousand.  And  after  the 
second  incident  they  were  still  without  under- 
standing, so  that  Jesus  marveled,  "Do  ye  not 
yet  perceive  neither  understand,  have  ye  your 
heart  hardened?"  When  he  cast  out  demons 
the  latter  spoke  of  his  messiahship  in  unmis- 
takable terms,  and  Jesus  apparently  acknowl- 
edged the  accusation  in  the  disciples'  presence, 
yet  they  attained  no  conviction  of  his  messiah- 
ship until  near  the  close  of  his  career.  Even 
then  their  understanding  of  it  was  very  crude, 
and  their  confidence  was  quickly  shaken  by  his 
arrest  and  death.  Similarly  they  failed  to 
comprehend  his  meaning  when  he  taught  in 
parables;  when  the  woman  was  healed  by 
touching  his  garment  they  were  so  stupid  as  to 
reprove  him  for  asking  who  touched  him; 
when  he  predicted  his  arrest,  death,  and  resur- 
rection, though  he  several  times  repeated  the 
statement,  they  failed  to  grasp  the  idea ;  on  the 
Mount  of  Transfiguration  even  the  most 
favored  of  his  associates  were  completely 
mystified;  in  the  Garden  of  Gethsemane,  in 
view  of  all  that  Jesus  had  said  and  the  situation 


226  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

that  recent  events  had  brought  about,  they 
displayed  amazing  stupidity;  and,  finally,  the 
women  at  the  tomb  departed  astonished,  silent, 
and  fearful,  notwithstanding  the  angel's  explicit 
announcement  of  Jesus'   resurrection. 

In  all  this  Mark  is  clearly  recognizing  that 
Jesus  made  no  such  impression  upon  his  con- 
temporaries as  his  later  interpreters  thought 
he  ought  to  have  produced,  and  as  they  would 
have  him  produce  on  the  minds  of  believers  in 
their  day.  But  by  making  the  blindness  of 
Jesus'  associates  responsible  for  this  failure, 
the  early  theologians  could  still  think  of  him 
as  displaying  unique  power  commensurate  with 
their  faith  in  him  as  the  heavenly  Lord,  and  at 
the  same  time  they  could  harmonize  the 
history  with  their  Christology.  This  situation 
represents  a  time  when  men  were  still  living 
who  knew  that  Jesus  had  been  regarded  by  his 
personal  companions  less  significantly  than 
subsequent  thought  of  him  would  presuppose. 
A  writer  who  was  entirely  free  to  follow  his 
fancy  ^vill  scarcely  have  left  Jesus  in  this 
position,  or  have  introduced  his  readers  to  a 
picture  that  reflected  so  unfavorably  upon  the 
disciples.  Had  the  primitive  tradition  been 
purely  the  product  of  fancy  we  should  have  had 


The  Gospel  Evidence  227 

at  first  that  free  idealization  which  is  more  in 
evidence  a  generation  or  two  later  when  death 
and  time  had  largely  removed  the  limitations 
which  actual  recollection  of  Jesus  imposed  upon 
his  first  interpreters. 

Moreover,  there  were  elements  in  the  early 
tradition  that  were  not  thought  especially 
creditable  to  Jesus,  yet  were  too  generally 
known  to  be  ignored.  These  will  certainly  not 
have  been  created  for  him  by  his  worshipers, 
and  we  may  believe  they  will  have  been  over- 
looked by  his  biographers,  in  so  far  as  circum- 
stances permitted.  Perhaps  no  incident  of  this 
class  gave  interpreters  more  difficulty  than 
Jesus'  baptism  by  John.  Wlien  the  movements 
inaugurated  by  these  leaders  came  into  com- 
petition, as  they  certainly  did  in  the  course  of 
time,  the  founders'  relation  to  one  another 
inevitably  became  a  subject  of  controversy. 
Christian  tradition  recognized  the  value  of 
John's  work,  even  affirming  his  greatness, 
according  to  a  reported  saying  of  Jesus;  yet  the 
tradition  was  careful  to  state  that  he  who  was 
least  in  the  kingdom  was  greater  than  John. 
But  it  was  a  well-known  fact  that  Jesus  had 
originally  been  among  John's  followers — had 
indeed    received    baptism    at    John's    hands. 


2  28  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

How,  then,  were  Christian  interpreters  to  save 
the  supremacy  of  their  master?  Mark  sees 
Jesus'  superiority  displayed  in  the  baptism  of 
the  Holy  Spirit  received  at  this  time — an  experi- 
ence after  the  manner  of  the  spiritual  outpouring 
attending  the  baptism  of  converts  to  the  new 
faith.  In  Matthew  it  is  explicitly  stated  that 
Jesus  did  not  need  to  be  baptized  by  John;  he 
was  already  greater  than  John,  according  to 
the  latter 's  own  acknowledgment.  Wliile  the 
act  did  not  primarily  benefit  Jesus,  it  did  serve 
two  useful  purj^oses:  it  gave  his  sanction  to 
baptism  as  a  church  ordinance,  and  it  gave  the 
assembled  multitude  an  opportunity  to  hear  the 
divine  testimony  to  Jesus'  messiahship — a  result 
which  the  scribe  effected  by  changing  Mark's 
"thou  art"  into  "this  is"  my  beloved  son.  In 
the  Fourth  Gospel  the  benefit  of  the  baptism 
accrues  to  John  himself,  in  that  he  thus  learns 
who  the  Messiah  is  to  whom  he  is  to  turn  over 
his  own  followers.  Here,  as  usual,  Christianity 
triumphed  by  absorbing  that  which  at  first  op- 
posed it;  but  the  very  acknowledgment  of  these 
and  similar  difficulties  shows  that  it  was  dealing 
with  the  tradition  of  a  real  person,  the  known 
facts  of  whose  life  did  not  always  harmonize  oft'- 
hand  with  the  interests  of  primitive  Christology. 


The  Gospel  Evidence  229 

The  necessity  of  accepting  in  good  faith  the 
gospel  representation  of  Jesus'  historicity  is 
practically  forced  upon  us  by  his  proximity  to 
the  community  in  which  his  life-story  first  took 
shape.  As  we  have  shown  above,  the  early 
framers  of  the  tradition  bring  Jesus  upon  the 
scene  at  a  time  when  those  who  would  have 
been  his  contemporaries  are  still  living.  More- 
over they  do  this  in  the  very  land  and  among 
the  very  people  where  his  activity  was  staged. 
Think  of  the  absurdity  of  this  procedure  if  his 
individuality  were  fictitious!  Yet  there  is 
never  an  inkling  that  this  claim  of  reality  for 
him  was  contested  or  even  doubted  by  either 
friend  or  foe.  There  were  many  features  in  the 
believer's  faith  that  had  to  be  defended.  Jesus' 
resurrection,  his  messiahship,  his  authority  in 
comparison  with  that  of  Moses,  his  superiority 
to  rabbinical  teachers,  his  place  in  the  line 
of  descent  from  David,  and  similar  tenets  of 
early  interpretation  were  all  topics  demanding 
an  apologetic.  This  was  never  the  case  with 
belief  in  Jesus'  historicity.  His  actual  existence 
was  uniformly  accepted  as  a  matter  of  course, 
which  at  that  time  is  tantamount  to  denying 
the  very  possibility  of  doubt  about  his  existence. 

Furthermore,    the    elements    of    normality 


230  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

preserved  in  the  story  of  Jesus'  life,  while  not 
beyond  the  possibility  of  invention,  are  cer- 
tainly strikingly  verisimilar.  He  comes,  along 
with  his  fellow-countrymen,  to  hear  John  the 
Baptist;  he  identifies  himself  with  the  move- 
ment inaugurated  by  this  prophet;  presently 
he  begins  preaching  on  his  own  account  along 
lines  somewhat  different  from  those  of  John; 
his  activities  are  mainly  among  his  fellow- 
Galileans;  country  people  and  fisher-folk  are 
the  chief  associates  of  this  carpenter-prophet; 
in  time  his  work  comes  to  the  notice  of  the 
authorities  by  whom  he  is  condemned;  from 
this  point  on  his  popularity  wanes;  at  the 
Passover  feast-season  he  is  put  out  of  the  way ; 
the  small  group  of  followers  who  clung  to  him 
until  the  end  now  return  disheartened  to  their 
homes.  Such  in  outline  is  the  realistic  basis  of 
the  story  of  Jesus'  life.  As  a  case  of  pure 
anthropomorphizing  this  certainly  is  without 
parallel,  to  say  the  least.  It  was  indeed  a 
skilful  artist  who  could  weave  this  crimson 
thread  of  reality  into  the  fanciful  God-man's 
career.  Yet  here  it  is,  and  it  remains  intact 
while  other  parts  of  the  fabric  fade  and  crumble 
under  the  light  of  critical  research.  We  may 
at    all   events   believe    the   possibility   of   its 


The  Gospel  Evidence  231 

genuineness    to    be    commensurate    with    its 
naturalness  and  durability. 

The  character  of  the  teaching  ascribed  to 
Jesus  may  be  cited  as  further  evidence  of  his 
existence.  Not  that  fictitious  teaching  may  not 
easily  have  been  invented,  but  a  fitting  source 
for  the  thinking  ascribed  to  him  is  nowhere 
found  more  appropriately  than  in  an  individual 
who  occupied  the  place  and  confronted  the 
problems  assigned  by  tradition  to  him.  The 
so-called  newness  of  his  teaching  has  often  been 
pronounced  a  delusion.  We  have  been  told 
that  all  he  is  alleged  to  have  said  can  be 
explained  as  a  loan  from  Judaism,  plus  a 
contribution  by  the  early  theologians.  Cer- 
tainly we  are  not  to  expect  that  his  thought 
would  be  entirely  different  from  that  of  Judaism, 
and  the  early  believers  may  indeed  have  made 
some  contributions  to  the  content  of  primitive 
Christian  teaching.  Still  we  find  in  the  tra- 
dition some  distinctive  items  which  seem  to  be 
pre-eminently  the  product  of  Jesus'  own  think- 
ing. The  New  Testament  writings  exhibit 
rather  clearly  the  chief  interests  of  primitive 
Christian  dogma,  and  these  are  found  to  be 
mainly  christological  in  type.  We  also  know 
something  of  the  thought-world  prior  to  and 


232  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

contemporary  with  Jesus.  Divine  judgment 
was  the  central  theme  of  the  preaching  of  John 
the  Baptist.  Palestinian  Judaism  of  the  time 
probably  was  not  absolutely  uniform  in  its 
thinking,  but  one  of  its  prevailing  character- 
istics was  the  idea  of  God's  separateness  from 
the  world.  Man  sought  to  win  divine  favor 
through  legal  observance,  or  through  asceticism. 
Now  Jesus'  teaching  does  not  put  stress  upon 
Christology — in  fact  the  primitive  phases  of  his 
teaching  are  remarkably  lacking  in  this  feature. 
His  thought  does  not  revolve  about  John's  God 
of  wrath  who  is  coming  in  judgment.  Nor  do 
the  legalism  of  the  Pharisees,  the  politics  either 
of  the  Sadducees  or  of  the  Zealots,  the  asceti- 
cism of  the  Essenes,  we  may  even  add  the 
eschatology  of  the  apocalyptists,  constitute  the 
chief  item  in  Jesus'  teaching  as  reported  in  our 
most  primitive  sources.  His  great  theme  is 
God's  nearness  and  love,  heart  righteousness, 
and  man's  divine  sonship  to  be  realized  through 
a  godlike  life.  To  be  sure  this  is  not  emphati- 
cally un- Jewish,  nor  is  it  un-Christian.  But  it 
was  not  the  center  of  interest  for  the  aggressive 
thinkers  of  the  early  church — witness  Paul  and 
the  author  of  the  Fourth  Gospel;  nor  can  it  be 
called   a  natural  product   of   the   currents  of 


The  Gospel  Evidence  233 

Jewish  thought  prevailing  at  the  beginning  of 
our  era.  Yet  it  is  a  most  distinctive  item 
in  primitive  gospel  tradition.  Whence  came  it  ? 
Not  from  some  fortuitous  concourse  of  abstract 
ideas  crystallizing  of  themselves  above  the 
heads  of  men  and  falling  upon  them  as  snow 
from  the  clouds.  Great  thoughts  do  not  come 
to  humanity  that  way.  They  are  rather  the 
product  of  some  great  soul,  reacting  upon  the 
actual  problems  of  his  world.  The  source  of 
this  alleged  teaching  of  Jesus  must  be  an 
individual.  The  necessary  character  of  this 
individual,  requirements  as  to  the  time  and 
place  of  his  appearance,  these  and  other  de- 
mands are  met  best  by  the  historical  Jesus  of 
Christian  tradition. 

Finally,  one  of  the  strongest  arguments  for 
Jesus'  existence  is  the  existence  of  the  primitive 
community  of  believers.  The  new  faith  at  the 
very  beginning  emphasizes  its  loyalty  to  a 
personal  founder  who  soon  after  his  death  is 
accorded  divine  honors  amounting  practically 
to  w^orship.  We  have  been  told  that  this 
reverence  on  the  part  of  the  disciples  necessa- 
rily excludes  the  possibility  of  Jesus'  historicity; 
it  is  inconceivable  that  men  should  worship  one 
who  had  been  actually  known  to  them  in  his 


234  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

human  limitations.  Whether  this  principle 
was  strictly  binding  in  the  ancient  world  may 
be  questioned;  nevertheless  if  Christians  had 
rendered  worship  to  the  man  Jesus  as  such,  the 
above  objection  might  be  plausible.  It  was, 
however,  the  exalted  Messiah  to  whom  godlike 
homage  was  paid.  The  transition  of  thought 
from  the  earthly  Jesus  to  the  heavenly  Christ 
was  not  a  gradual  process  requiring  centuries  of 
growth;  it  was  effected  almost  in  the  twinkling 
of  an  eye  by  the  totir  deforce  of  the  resurrection 
experiences.  Believers  were  now  confident 
that  God  had  done  something  for  Jesus  which 
had  not  been  done  for  any  other  man — Jesus 
had  been  miraculously  raised  from  the  dead — 
and  those  who  believed  this  honored  Jesus 
accordingly.  Doubtless  a  high  estimate  of 
him  while  on  earth  has  to  be  presupposed  as 
the  antecedent  of  the  latter  attitude,  but  the 
notion  of  deification,  so  far  as  the  early  believers 
were  concerned,  rested  upon  faith  in  his  resur- 
rection. And  this  faith,  in  turn,  needed  an 
earthly  Jesus  quite  as  much  as  a  heavenly 
Christ. 

Christians  were  doubtless  conscious  of  some 
incongruity  between  their  former  attitude 
toward  Jesus  and  their  reverence  for  him  after 


The  Gospel  Evidence  235 

his  resurrection.  They  tried  to  remove  this 
discrepancy  by  enlarging  upon  their  memory 
of  his  earthly  career,  while  they  explained  their 
failure  to  perceive  his  uniqueness  during  his 
lifetime  as  due  to  dulness  on  their  part.  Their 
hearts  were  hardened  and  their  eyes  were 
holden.  But  under  these  circumstances  must 
we  not  suppose  that  the  earthly  Jesus  was 
troublesome  to  the  community  because  of  the 
difficulty  of  fitting  him  into  their  christological 
speculations  ?  And  if  so,  can  we  consistently 
make  the  community's  existence  rest  funda- 
mentally upon  the  existence  of  this  Jesus? 
On  the  other  hand  it  is  quite  wrong  to  imagine 
that  early  Christians  ever  wanted  to  rid  them- 
selves of  the  fact  of  Jesus'  earthly  career — not 
even  by  the  Docetists  was  that  attempted.  It 
was  only  the  too  vivid  outlines  of  Jesus'  human 
limitations  that  his  zealous  interpreters  sought 
to  remove,  but  to  eliminate  his  historical 
existence  would  have  meant  shipwreck  for 
their  faith.  In  fact  the  idea  of  an  exalted 
Christ  alone  would  hardly  have  sufficed  even 
for  their  christological  speculations,  since  it 
would  have  invalidated  their  resurrection  faith. 
Much  less  could  it  have  supplied  an  adequate 
background  for  the  uniqueness  and  vitality  of 


236  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

the  new  religion.  This  was  from  the  first  linked 
up  with  the  memory  of  a  historical  founder. 
This  fact  we  have  already  discovered  in  Paul's 
relations  with  the  first  Christians;  it  appears 
again  in  the  early  chapters  of  Acts,  and  it  is 
further  attested  by  the  central  place  given  to 
Jesus'  words  and  deeds  in  the  earliest  phases 
of  gospel  tradition.  The  impetus  for  the  new 
movement  comes  from  this  individual,  he 
supplies  the  incentive  for  the  new  t\pe  of  think- 
ing, he  is  the  object  about  which  the  new 
literature  gathers,  and  he  is  the  model  and 
inspiration  of  the  new  community's  life. 

This  forceful  individual,  who  impressed  his 
own  and  succeeding  generations  with  his  life 
of  loyal  service  for  humanity  and  his  plain  yet 
profoundly  significant  religious  teaching,  started 
Christianity  on  its  way.  To  find  this  ideal 
without  a  historical  Jesus,  as  to  create  Paul 
without  Paul,  is  practically  impossible.  The 
Christ-idea  alone  is  not  equal  to  the  task  of 
producing  Christianity,  it  is  not  sufficiently 
real,  human,  vital.  The  new  movement  was 
certainly  influenced  by  ideas  of  various  sorts 
with  which  it  came  into  contact  from  time  to 
time.  It  even  adopted  current  notions  and 
ritualistic  practices  in  the  effort  to  give  tangible 


The  Gospel  Evidence  237 

expression  to  its  inner  life,  but  the  starting- 
point  of  theology  and  ritual,  as  well  as  of 
literary  activity  and  religious  impulse,  was  the 
memory  of  an  earthly  Jesus. ^  He  was  the  great 
source  of  inspiration  for  Christian  living.  Just 
as  Paul  is  found  harking  back  to  the  type  of 
life  exemplified  in  Jesus,  so  must  many  Chris- 
tians have  seen  in  him  the  personal  embodiment 
of  their  ideal.  Thus  each  became,  according 
to  individual  ability,  a  coefficient  of  the  Jesus- 
life.  While  the  new  religion,  "Christianity," 
took  its  name  from  the  heavenly  Christ  of  faith, 
the  actual  existence  of  an  earthly  Jesus  was  its 
corner-stone.  Other  foundation  hath  no  man 
laid — successfully . 

'Speaking  of  early  Christianity,  Clemen  says:  "Es  ist  cine 
gestiftete  Religion,  und  da  als  dieser  Stifter  des  Christentums 
immei:  nur  Jesus  bezeichnet  wird,  konnen  wir  jetzt  sagen:  er  war 

eine  geschichtliche  Personlichkeit Wir  kennen  das  Jklilieu, 

aus  dem  es  hervorgegangen  ist— und  dieses  Bild  wird  sich  auch 
durch  etwaige  kiinftige  Entdeckungen  nicht  mehr  voUig  andern — 
aber  aus  diesem  Milieu  konnte  es  nur  hervorgehen,  wenn  eine 
richtunggebende  Personlichkeit  an  seinem  Anfang  steht.  Das 
ist  der  durchschlagende  und  unwiderlegliche  Beweis  fur  die 
Geschichtlichkeit  Jesu. " — Der  geschichtliche  Jesus,  p,  43. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

EXTPL\-BIBLICAL  EVIDENCE  FOR  JESUS' 
EXISTENCE 

Even  in  the  New  Testament  not  all  writings 
are  equally  important  witnesses  for  the  histori- 
cal personality  of  Jesus.  Yet  all  proceed  upon 
the  assumption  that  the  primitive  testimony 
to  his  existence  is  unquestionably  reliable. 
While  none  of  the  New  Testament  books  sup- 
plies any  more  original  evidences  than  are 
found  in  Paul's  epistles  and  the  gospels,  they 
all  have  a  corroborative  value,  and  testify  to 
the  pervasiveness  of  belief  in  Jesus'  historicity. 
Of  the  same  type  is  the  evidence  derived  from 
the  non-canonical  gospel  fragments.'  Regard- 
less of  the  judgment  we  may  pass  upon  the 
historicity  of  the  details  the  apocr}^hal  gospels 
narrate,  they  show  that  the  notion  of  an  earthly 
Jesus  was  uniformly  accepted  as  a  basal  fact 
with  which  all  varieties  of  interpretation  had 
to  reckon. 

'These  confirm  such  realistic  items  in  Jesus'  career  as  his 
baptism  by  John,  his  association  with  disciples,  his  habit  of  teach- 
ing, and  his  violent  death.  Cf.  Prcuschen,  Antilegomena  (Gies- 
sen,  1905*);  W.  Bauer,  Das  Leben  Jcsu  im  Zeilalter  der  neu- 
testamenUichen  Apokryphen  (Tubingen,  1909). 

238 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  239 

The  same  thing  is  true  of  the  Apostolic 
Fathers,  though  they  never  offer  anything  like 
a  sketch  of  Jesus'  life.  They  take  the  reality 
of  his  earthly  existence  for  granted,  in  this 
respect  following  the  current  Christian  tradi- 
tion both  in  its  historical  and  in  its  interpreta- 
tive characteristics.  Though  belief  in  Jesus' 
pre-existence  and  heavenly  exaltation  are  stress 
points  for  interpretation,  the  fact  of  his  ap- 
pearance upon  earth  remains  fundamental  for 
the  Christian  gospel.  Thus  Clement  of  Rome, 
near  the  end  of  the  first  century,  writes: 

The  apostles  received  the  gospel  for  us  from  the 
Lord  Jesus  Christ.  Jesus  Christ  was  sent  forth  from 
God.  So  then  Christ  is  from  God  and  the  apostles  are 
from  Christ.  Both  therefore  come  of  the  will  of  God 
in  the  appointed  order.  Having  therefore  received  a 
charge,  and  having  been  fully  assured  through  the 
resurrection  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  confirmed 
in  the  word  of  God  with  the  full  assurance  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  they  went  forth  with  the  glad  tidings  that  the 
kingdom  of  God  should  come.^ 

By  the  close  of  the  first  century  and  continu- 
ing on  into  the  second,  when  the  Apostolic 
Fathers  and  the  writers  of  the  apocryphal 
gospels  were  doing  their  work,  the  tradition  of 
an  actual  earthly  career  of  Jesus  was  uniformly 

'Ad  Cor.,  42: 1-3. 


240  TJic  Ilisloricity  of  Jesus 

accepted.  This  is,  of  course,  what  one  would 
expect  in  Christian  circles  as  the  natural  out- 
come of  the  teaching  of  Paul  and  other  early 
missionaries.  While  this  testimony  can  there- 
fore have  only  secondary  value,  it  does  show 
that  belief  in  Jesus'  historicity  was  never  the 
piece  de  resistance  of  controversy.  Even  the 
heretics  whom  Ignatius  condemns  were  not 
questioning  the  fact  of  Jesus'  actual  appearance 
upon  earth,  but  only  the  reality  of  his  human 
nature.  Against  these  Ignatius  exhorts  his 
readers  to  adhere  to  the  primitive  faith,  being 
"fully  persuaded  concerning  the  birth  and  the 
passion  and  the  resurrection,  which  took  place 
in  the  time  of  the  governorship  of  Pontius 
Pilate."'  This  is  the  uniform  Christian  tradi- 
tion, beginning  with  the  earliest  times,  when 
personal  companions  of  Jesus  were  still  living, 
and  extending  on  through  the  first  and  second 
centuries  until  finally  incorporated  into  the 
official  creed  of  the  church. 

When  we  follow  the  history  of  Christianity,  as 
described  in  its  own  documents,  down  to  about 
the  middle  of  the  second  century  for  example, 
it  would  seem  to  have  been  the  world-stirring 
movement  of  the  age.     The  Roman  official  is 

^Mag.,  II. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  241 

called  upon  to  execute  Jesus ;  Paul  is  frequently 
brought  before  the  civil  authorities  in  defense  of 
the  new  religion  until  finally  he  lands  in  prison 
in  the  capital;  Christians  attract  attention  and 
are  persecuted  in  different  parts  of  the  empire 
before  the  close  of  the  first  century;  Clement 
of  Rome  mentions  similar  experiences  undergone 
by  the  Roman  church  in  earlier  and  in  more 
recent  times;  when  Ignatius  writes  his  epistles 
he  is  en  route  to  Rome  whither  he  is  being 
transported  as  a  prisoner  under  condemnation 
on  account  of  his  religion,  and  about  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  Justin  addresses  an  apol- 
ogy to  the  Emperor  "in  behalf  of  those  from 
every  race  of  men  who  are  hated  and  abused."' 
It  would  seem  that  Christianity  had  early  come 
to  the  notice  of  the  imperial  authorities,  vAiO 
had  strenuously  but  vainly  endeavored  to  stay 
the  progress  of  the  new  religion  which  was 
destined  to  spread  itself  rapidly  over  the 
Roman  world. 

This  is  the  way  the  situation  looked  to  Chris- 
tians. But  from  the  contemporary  Roman 
point  of  view  the  outlook  was  apparently  quite 
different.  The  secular  writers  who  record  the 
history  of   the  period  either  ignore   the  new 

•Apol.,  I,  I. 


242  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

religious  movement,  or  mention  it  only  casually ; 
and  as  for  its  founder,  whose  personality  was 
so  unique  according  to  Christian  tradition,  he  is 
hardly  so  much  as  known  by  name.  But  one 
may  easily  overestimate  the  significance  of  this 
silence.  In  the  first  place  it  must  be  remem- 
bered that  our  available  sources  of  information 
from  the  Roman  side  are  scanty.  Moreover 
the  secular  historian  as  a  rule  had  no  interest 
in  the  various  religions  throughout  the  empire 
so  long  as  their  devotees  did  not  take  an  openly 
hostile  attitude  toward  the  state.  For  some 
time  the  Jews  had  been  looked  upon  with 
suspicion  for  their  refusal  to  identify  them- 
selves with  heathen  society,  and  as  Christians 
took  practically  the  Jemsh  position  in  this 
matter,  they  introduced  no  novelty  into  the 
situation  so  far  as  the  casual  Roman  observer 
was  concerned.  It  was  perfectly  natural  for 
a  heathen  writer  to  fail  to  differentiate  Chris- 
tianity from  Judaism,  and  so  to  pass  it  by  with- 
out more  specific  designation.  Its  founder 
would  seem  no  more  deserving  of  attention  than 
any  other  Jewish  rabbi  or  prophet. 

While  Roman  sources  are  very  scanty,  they 
do  furnish  a  few  items  of  importance.  Pliny, 
when  governor  of  Bithynia,  wrote  to  Trajan 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  243 

concerning  the  proper  method  of  dealing  with 
Christianity.  The  date  of  the  letter  is  com- 
monly set  at  112  A.D.  The  Christian  "super- 
stition" is  said  to  have  spread  like  a  contagion 
not  only  through  the  cities  but  also  into  the 
villages  and  country  regions.  The  temples 
were  almost  forsaken  and  the  trade  in  sacrifices 
had  fallen  off  deplorably.  But  the  movement 
was  not  a  new  one  in  Pliny's  time.  One  person 
confessed  that  he  had  abandoned  it  twenty 
years  before.  Although  Pliny  was  somewhat 
disturbed  by  the  situation,  he  felt  that  the 
first  enthusiasm  was  safely  passed  and  the  tide 
of  return  to  the  national  religion  had  set  in. 
He  found  some  who  had  formerly  been  drawn 
away  by  the  superstition  now  ready  to  ofifer 
incense  to  Caesar's  image  and  to  curse  Christ. 
Other  accused  persons  denied  that  they  had 
ever  been  Christians.  Yet  the  wide  extent  of 
the  movement  is  shown  even  in  Pliny's  opti- 
mistic outlook.'  Making  due  allowance  for 
possible  exaggeration,  it  is  still  certain  that 

'To  cite  only  the  closing  sentences  of  the  letter:  "certe 
satis  constat  prope  iam  desolata  templa  coepisse  celebrari  et 
sacra  sollemnia  diu  intermissa  repeti  pastumque  venire  victim- 
arum,  cuius  adhuc  rarissimus  emptor  inveniebatur.  ex  quo 
facile  est  opinari,  quae  turba  hominum  emendari  possit,  si  sit 
paenitentiae  locus. " 


244  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Christianity  had  gained  a  strong  foothold  in 
the  regions  governed  by  Pliny,  where  it  had 
been  in  evidence  for  several  years.' 

Of  the  founder  of  the  movement  Pliny  tells 
us  nothing.  He  knows  that  Christians  rever- 
ence one  called  Christ  to  whom  they  sing  hymns 
in  their  assembly  and  whom  they  refuse  to 
curse,  but  nothing  more  is  said  of  this  individual. 
The  subject  would  have  no  probable  interest 
for  a  Roman  official.  Even  for  a  historian  like 
Suetonius,  Christian  origins  appear  to  have 
been  of  little  moment,  and  his  references  to 
Christianity  itself  are  very  obscure.  About 
1 20  A.D.,  in  his  lives  of  the  Caesars  from  Julius 
Caesar  to  Domitian,  he  twice  makes  statements 
which  have  been  taken  to  refer  to  Christianity. 
He  says  Claudius  expelled  Jews  from  Rome 
because  they  raised  a  constant  commotion  at 
the  instigation  of  a  certain  Chresius.^  Again  in 
writing  of  Nero  he  remarks  that  this  emperor 
punished  the  Christiani,  who  were  adherents  of 
a  "new  and  odious  superstition."-'  The  latter 
statement   is    easily   understood,    for   we   are 

■The  genuineness  of  the  reported  correspondence  between 
Pliny  and  Trajan  has  not  always  passed  unquestioned,  but 
critical  opinion  at  present  is  in  favor  of  holding  to  its  authen- 
ticity.    Cf.  Goguel,  L'Eiicliaristic  (Paris,  1910,  pp.  259  fT.). 

'Claud.,XXY.  iXcro.XYl. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  245 

familiar  with  the  idea  that  Nero  persecuted  the 
Christians.  But  the  reference  to  Chrestus  who 
incited  a  disturbance  among  the  Jews  is  not 
so  clear.  The  confusion  of  Chrestus  and  Chris- 
tiis  by  the  heathen  we  know  to  have  been  a 
fact/  but  certainly  Jesus  (Christus)  of  the 
gospel  narratives  could  not  have  been  in  Rome 
in  the  time  of  Claudius  (41-54  a.d.).  We  also 
know  from  various  sources  that  the  Roman 
emperors  did  on  occasion  expel  Jews  from 
Rome,^  but  the  question  here  is  whether 
Chrestus  is  an  inaccurate  reference  to  Chris- 
tianity and  its  founder.  The  natural  meaning 
of  impulsore  Chresto  is  that  a  disturbance  was 
caused  by  a  Jew  named  Chrestus  living  in  Rome 
at  the  time.  Perhaps  it  is  precarious  to  force 
any  other  meaning  from  Suetonius'  language, 
and  it  may  be  that  we  have  here  to  do  with  the 
work  of  some  messianic  enthusiast  of  the 
Zealot  t>pe.     On   the  other  hand,   it  is  also 

'Cf.  Tertullian,  ApoL,  III;  Lactantius,  Instil.,  IV,  7;  Justin, 
Apol.,  I,  55. 

^  About  19  A.D.Tiberius  ordered  an  expulsion,  according  to 
Josephus,  Ant.,  XVIII,  iii,  5;  Tacitus,  Annul.,  II,  85;  Suetonius, 
Tiber.,  XXXVI.  The  statements  about  Claudius'  action  arc 
conflicting.  According  to  Acts  18:2;  Suetonius,  Claud.,  XXV; 
Orosius,  VII,  6,  15,  an  edict  of  expulsion  went  into  effect.  Dio 
Cassius  says  Claudius  merely  prohibited  the  Jews'  assembling 
together. 


246  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

possible  that  Suetonius  did  not  distinguish 
sharply  between  Jews  and  Christians,  and 
knew  so  little  of  the  actual  situation  as  to  make 
his  reference  to  it  thus  unintelligible.  If  the 
disturbance  was  really  due  to  a  controversy 
between  Jews  and  Christians,  this  is  evidence 
of  the  spread  of  Christianity  to  the  capital  of 
the  empire  by  the  year  50  a.d.  Paul's  letter 
to  the  Romans  less  than  ten  years  later  also 
presupposes  an  early  date  for  the  planting  of 
the  new  faith  in  Rome. 

Tacitus'  information  is  much  more  explicit.^ 
According  to  his  definite  statement,  the  Chris- 
tians whom  Nero  persecuted  were  named  from 
"Christ"  who  had  been  put  to  death  by 
Pontius  Pilate  in  the  reign  of  Tiberius.  Here 
we  at  last  find  a  Roman  historian  (writing  before 
115  A.D.)  bearing  unequivocal  testimony  to  the 
existence  of  the  Jesus  of  gospel  history.  Is  this 
passage  a  genuine  part  of  the  original  author's 

'His  most  important  sentences  are:  "ergo  abolendo  rumori 
[that  Nero  had  himself  burned  Rome]  Nero  subdidit  reos  et  quae- 
sitissimis  poenis  afTecit  quos  per  flagitia  invisos  valgus  Chris- 
tianos  appellabat.  auctor  nominis  eius  Christus  Tiberio  imper- 
itantc  per  procuratorera  Pentium  Pilatum  supplicio  affectus  erat, 
rcprcssaque  in  pracsens  exitiabilis  superstitio  nirsum  erumpebat 
non  modo  per  Judaeam,  originem  eius  mali,  sed  per  urbem 
etiam,  quo  cuncta  undique  atrocia  aut  pudenda  confluunt  cele- 
branturque."     Anna!.,  XV,  44. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  247 

work  ?  And,  if  so,  is  it  a  source  independent 
of  gospel  tradition  ?  The  preponderance  of 
critical  opinion  answers  the  former  question 
affirmatively;  the  answer  to  the  latter  is  less 
certain.  Those  who  deny  Jesus'  historicity 
make  much  of  Hochart's  protest  against  the 
genuineness  of  Tacitus.'  The  French  scholar 
extended  his  doubts  not  only  to  cover  the  whole 
chapter  in  question  but  also  much  more  of  the 
alleged  writings  of  the  Roman  historian.  He 
would  make  Poggio  Bracciolini,  who  brought 
our  most  important  manuscript  of  Books  xi-xvi 
of  the  Annals  to  light  in  1427,  in  reality  the 
author  of  the  work.  This  extreme  skepticism 
has  failed  to  win  any  substantial  approval,^  nor 
are  we  able  to  accept  the  arguments  sometimes 
urged  against  the  sentence  which  refers  particu- 
larly to  Jesus'  death  under  Pilate.  Apart 
from  a-priori  considerations,  the  main  objec- 

'Hochart,  Etudes  au  sujel  dc  la  perseculion  des  Chretiens  sous 
Neroii  (Paris,  1885),  De  I'authenticile  des  Annales  el  des  Histoires 
de  Tacile  (Paris,  1890),  Nouvelles  considerations  au  sujel  des 
Annales  el  des  Histoires  de  Tacile  (Paris,  1894).  Cf.  also  Ross, 
Tacitus  and  Bracciolini:  The  Annals  Forged  in  the  Fifteenth 
Century  (London,  1878).  Ross  questions  the  Annals  only,  but 
Hochart  rejects  also  the  History. 

^  Cf.  the  refutation  by  C.  F.  Arnold,  Studien  uber  die  neron- 
ische  Christenverfolgen  (Leipzig,  1888);  Furneaux,  The  Annals 
of  Tacitus  (Oxford,  I896^  I,  8-12). 


> 


248  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

tions  lie  in  the  two  phrases,  Tiherio  imperitante 
and  per  procuratorcm  Pontium  Pilaturn.  The 
former  is  said  to  be  un-Tacitean;  Tacitus  would 
have  written  princcps  in  speaking  of  Tiberius. 
But  much  as  one  might  think  he  should  have 
used  the  latter  term,  it  cannot  be  denied  that 
he  might  not  have  used  the  former,  which 
occurs  several  times  in  the  writings  usually 
credited  to  Tacitus.  The  further  contention, 
that  "the  procurator  Pontius  Pilate"  needs 
closer  definition,  is  more  in  point.  0\'er  what 
country  was  he  governor?  But  the  answer  is 
near  at  hand,  for  we  are  informed  at  once  that 
Judea  is  the  source  whence  this  "malady" 
sprang. 

Accepting  the  genuineness  of  Tacitus,  it  is 
still  a  question  whether  his  testimony  is  based 
on  anything  other  than  current  Christian 
tradition.  He  may  have  had  access  to  official 
records  in  which  the  facts  he  records  were 
mentioned,  yet  in  the  present  state  of  our 
information  this  is  purely  a  matter  of  conjecture. 
On  the  other  hand,  we  have  already  seen  that 
gospel  tradition  by  the  year  115  a.d.  had  taken 
the  form  in  which  it  is  at  present  known,  and 
had  been  carried  broadcast  over  the  Roman 
Empire  by  word  of  mouth  if  not  in  written 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  249 

documents.  And  the  death  of  Jesus  under 
Pontius  Pilate  was  one  of  its  most  persistent 
items.  Tacitus'  rehability  does  not  suffer  by 
admitting  that  he  may  have  had  his  informa- 
tion from  current  Christian  tradition;  this 
possibility  merely  robs  us  of  the  convenience 
of  citing  Tacitus  as  an  independent  witness. 

More  satisfactory  results  might  be  expected 
from  an  examination  of  Jewish  writings  of  the 
period.  Of  these  however  only  the  works  of 
Philo  and  Josephus  have  been  preserved  at  all 
fully.  The  latter  frequently  speaks  about  a 
certain  contemporary  named  Justus'  who  also 
wrote  a  history  of  the  Jewish  war,  a  work  which 
Josephus  criticizes  very  unfavorably.  In  the 
latter  part  of  the  ninth  century  Photius,^ 
patriarch  of  Constantinople,  refers  to  Justus' 
"chronicle  of  the  Jewish  kings"  from  Moses  to 
Agrippa  11.  This  is  pronounced  by  Photius 
to  be  very  brief  and  to  pass  over  many  impor- 
tant and  necessary  things,  among  them  the 
appearing  of  Christ,  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
in  him,  and  the  miracles  he  wrought.  Hence 
if  Justus'  work  was  still  extant  there  is  slight 
probability  that  it  would  yield  anything  for 

'Josephus,  Life,  g,  12,  17,  35,  37,  54,  65,  70,  and  74. 
'Cod.,  2i  (Migne  cd.,  CIII,  col.  65). 


250  The  Uisloricily  oj  Jesus 

use  in  this  connection.  Philo  also  has  nothing  to 
offer,  since,  as  already  noted,  his  treatise  on  the 
Therapeutes  has  no  reference  to  Christianity. 

Josephus  only  remains.  Twice  in  his  Antiqui- 
ties he  mentions  Jesus.  In  the  midst  of  an 
account  of  calamities  suffered  by  the  Jews  in 
the  time  of  Pilate,  we  read : 

At  this  time  lived  Jesus,  a  wise  man,  if  indeed  it  is 
l)roper  to  call  him  a  man.  For  he  was  a  doer  of  wonder- 
ful works,  a  teacher  of  men  who  receive  the  truth 
gladly,  and  he  won  to  himself  both  many  Jews  and 
many  Greeks.  This  was  the  Christ.  And  when 
Pilate,  on  the  indictment  of  the  chief  men  among  us, 
sentenced  him  to  crucifixion,  those  who  loved  him  at 
first  did  not  cease  lo\dng  him ;  for  he  appeared  to  them 
alive  again  the  third  day  as  indeed  the  divine  prophets 
had  foretold  these  and  ten  thousand  other  wonders 
concerning  him.  And  even  to  this  day  the  race  of 
Christians  named  from  him  is  not  extinct.' 

On  another  occasion,  in  speaking  of  the  high 
priest  Ananus,  Josephus  says:  "So  he  [Ananus] 

'The  original  of  ihis  very  important  passage  is,  according 
to  the  Niese  text:  TlviTon  5i  /card  tovtov  rbv  xp^^'O"  'I^/coOs  <TO<pbs 
(XvtJp,  itye  6.v8pa  avTbv  \iyeiv  XP'^'  ^^  l^^P  Trapadb^iov  (pyuv  toujt^j, 
5i5d(r(caXo5  avOpdjirwu  twv  rj^ovrj  TaKrjdri  Sexop-^vuv.  Kal  ttoXXoi)?  h^v 
'lovSaiovs,  iroWovs  d^  Kal  tov 'FiWrjviKoO  iirrjydyeTo-  6  xP"'"''^s 
ovTos  9jv.  Kal  avrbv  (vbel^ei  twv  irpuruv  avbpCjv  Trap'  rip.iv  (rraupcp 
iTTiTeTinrjKbTos  TliXdrov  ovk  ewajiffavro  ol  rb  irpCiTov  d.yair-^o'ai'Tes  • 
e<pdvr]  yap  aiirois  rplTir)v  tx'^"  VP-^pav  iraXiv  ^Qiv  tGiv  deiijiv  Trpo^T/Twv 
ravTOL  T(  Kal  dXXa  p-vpia  irepl  avTov  davp-idia  eip-qKbruv .  ei'j  tri  re 
vvv  TWV  Xpi(TTiavQv  aTrb  roOde  divop-aapivov  ovk  ewiXiire  rb  tpv\ov 
{Aiil.,  XVIII,  iii,  3). 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  251 

assembled  the  sanhedrin  of  judges  and  brought 
before  them  the  brother  of  Jesus,  the  so-called 
Christ,  whose  name  was  James,  and  some 
others.  And  when  he  had  formed  an  accusa- 
tion against  them  as  breakers  of  the  law  he 
delivered  them  to  be  stoned."^ 

Each  of  these  passages  contains  a  perfectly 
clear  reference  to  the  Jesus  of  gospel  history, 
but  the  genuineness,  particularly  of  the  former, 
is  commonly  doubted.  The  grounds  of  this 
doubt  are,  first,  the  difficulty  of  ascribing  state- 
ments of  this  sort  to  a  Jew.  One  would  expect 
a  Jewish  writer  either  to  refute  or  to  ignore  the 
claims  made  by  Christians  for  Jesus'  unique- 
ness. It  is  especially  difficult  to  imagine  that 
Josephus  would  emphatically  assert  the  mes- 
siahship  of  Jesus.  Josephus  has  little  to  say 
about  the  messianic  hope,  that  item  in  Jewish 
faith  which  had  been  the  source  of  so  much 
trouble  for  the  Roman  authorities.  For  his 
part  he  would  set  the  Roman  mind  at  rest  by 
identifying  Vespasian  with  the  promised  Mes- 
siah.    He   makes   this   statement  in  his   War 

'  This  reads:  are  5?;  ovv  toiovtos  wv  6  Avavos,  vo/xtcras  ex^"*  'cctp^j' 
eiriT'^ideiov  5ia  t6  redvavai  fikv  ^tjcttov,  ''AX^cvov  5'  fTi  Kara,  Tr]v 
odbp  VTTO.px^'-v,  Kadi^ei  avvihpLOV  KpirQv  Kal  Trapayaywp  els  aiirii  rbv 
d5€\(f>bv  TtjctoO  toO  \e70/t;t^»'oii  Xpi.<TTOv,  'Id/cw^os  6vofj.a  avTifi,  Kal 
Tivas  eripovs,  ws  Trapavoix-qffdvTiiiv  Karriyopiap  woi7)(Ta.p.evo%  wapiSwKe 
\e\)(T6r]<Toixivovs  {Ant.,  XX,  ix,  i). 


252  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

(VI,  V,  4)  and  it  is  hardly  conceivable  that  he 
would  later  in  the  Antiquities  come  out  with  so 
bold  an  assertion  of  Jesus'  messiahship.  It 
would  seem  that  we  have  here  either  an  out 
and  out  fabrication,  or  a  radical  recasting  of 
some  statement  whose  original  import  was  less 
favorable  to  Christianity. 

Each  of  these  opinions  has  been  advo- 
cated/ The  former  is  more  commonly  adopted 
nowadays,  yet  the  latter  still  has  adherents. 
Goethals^  would  rewrite  and  so  interpret  the 
language  as  to  make  Josephus  take  a  somewhat 
liberal  yet  distinctly  Jewish  point  of  view.  In 
particular,  the  sentence  "this  was  the  Christ" 
is  thought  originally  to  have  read  "the  Christ 
as  many  supposed"  [6  ^piaro^  W9  7roXXot9 
eVo/xi^ero].  J.  Weiss  also  holds  it  quite 
unnecessary  to  reject  the  passage  outright.^ 
He  would  understand  "this  was  the  Christ"  to 
mean  this  Jesus  was  the  one  whom  the  Chris- 
tians today,  as  everyone  knows,  honor  as  the 
Christ;    and   similarly   the   reference   to    the 

•  On  this  much-discussed  question  see  Schiirer,  Geschichtc  des 
judiscficn  Volkcs  (3d  and  4th  cd.),  I,  544  ff-,  where  citations  of 
literature  to  1901  are  given. 

^Josephc  temoin  dc  Jisus  (Melanges  d'histoire  du  Christian- 
ismc,  1,  Bruxelles  ct  Paris,  iQog);  cf.  Soltau,  Wochaischrijt  fiir 
klassische  Philologic,  1910,  N.  24. 

^  Jesus  von  Nazareth,  pp.  88  f. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  253 

fulfilment  of  prophecy  would  be  an  objective 
representation  of  Christian  opinion.  But  none 
of  these  solutions  quite  disposes  of  one  serious 
difficulty,  namely  the  foreignness  of  the  passages 
to  its  context.  Its  motive  is  neither  to  record 
a  sample  of  Jewish  "sedition,"  nor  is  it  a  "calam- 
ity which  put  the  Jews  into  disorder" — the 
topics  treated  in  the  context.  It  is  rather  a 
distinctly  biased  note  aiming  to  glorify  Chris- 
tianity, a  note  such  as  a  Christian  might  write 
on  the  margin  or  a  scribe  insert  into  the  text. 
This  is  all  the  more  probable  since  it  is  not  so 
much  to  Jews — who  looked  upon  Josephus  with 
suspicion  after  his  part  in  the  war  with  Rome — 
as  to  Christians  that  we  are  indebted  for  the 
preservation  of  Josephus'  works.  In  fact  the 
earliest  Christian  references  to  Josephus  are 
against  the  originality  of  the  paragraph  in 
question.  Twice  Origen  affirms  that  Josephus 
did  not  acknowledge  the  messiahship  of  Jesus, ^ 
and  in  each  instance  the  phrase  "Jesus,  the 
so-called  Christ"  (from  Antiquities,  XX,  ix,  i) 
is  the  ground  of  Origen's  statement.  Evi- 
dently he  is  not  acquainted  with  the  earlier 
paragraph,  since  so  outspoken  a  testimony  to 
Jesus'   messiahship   from   the   Jew,   Josephus, 

'Com.  on  Matt.,  X,  17  (Migne  ed.,  XIII,  col.  877),  and  contra 
Celsum,  I,  47. 


254  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

would  have  been  a  deadly  weapon  to  employ 
against  the  Jew,  Celsus.  This  weapon  was, 
however,  forged  not  long  after  Origen's  day, 
for  Eusebius  cites  the  paragraph  on  two  occa- 
sions and  evidently  thinks  it  genuine.' 

There  is  less  reason  to  doubt  that  Josephus 
himself  mentioned  James,  "the  brother  of  the 
so-called  Christ."  This  is  attested  by  Origen 
on  three  occasions. ""  Yet  Schlirer  thinks  the 
authenticity  of  this  passage  in  Josephus  is  also 
very  doubtful.  He  infers  this  from  Origen's 
statement  that  Josephus  thought  the  fall  of 
Jerusalem  to  be  an  expression  of  the  divine 
displeasure  on  account  of  the  killing  of  James. ^ 
Since  none  of  our  manuscripts  of  Josephus  sup- 
port this  reading  Schlirer  concludes  that  the 
text  used  by  Origen  had  already  undergone 
Christian  revision,  and  it  is  therefore  doubtful 
whether  even  the  reference  to  Jesus  in  this  con- 
nection should  be  retained.  But  can  we  dispose 
of  Origen's  testimony  so  easily  ?    This  reading 

^Hist.  EccL,  1,  II,  and  Dan.  Evang.,  Ill,  5. 

'In  addition  to  the  two  references  given  above,  see  contra 
Celsum,  II,  13. 

3  As  cited  in  Origen,  Com.  on  Matt.,  X,  17,  Josephus  said: 
"The  people  thought  they  suffered  these  things  for  the  sake  of 
James. "  In  contra  Celsum,  1, 47  and  II,  13  this  opinion  is  credited 
to  Josephus  himself. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  255 

was  not  peculiar  to  Origen;'  it  is  also  attested 
by  Jerome.^  Moreover  it  is  not  easy  to  dis- 
cover a  motive  which  would  prompt  the  Chris- 
tians to  connect  the  fall  of  Jerusalem  with  the 
death  of  James,  when  they  seem  to  have  been 
uniformly  of  the  opinion  that  it  was  a  punish- 
ment upon  the  Jews  for  their  rejection  of  Jesus. 
It  would  have  served  Christian  interests  better 
to  remove  this  statement  from  Josephus.^ 
Nor  is  it  intrinsically  improbable  that  many 
Jews  entertained  a  good  opinion  of  James,  in 
spite  of  his  adherence  to  Christianity.  Even 
in  the  New  Testament  he  is  reputed  for  his 
loyalty  to  the  law.  We  also  know  the  Jews 
were  much  displeased  with  the  Sadducean  high 
priest,  Ananus,  and  petitioned  Albinus  to 
restrain  him  in  his  rash  conduct.''     Evidently 

'Schiirer  says  of  it,  "ohne  Zweifel  eine  singulare,  in  den 
Vulgartext  des  Josephus  nicht  iibergegangene  christliche  Inter- 
polation." 

^de  vir.  ill  us.,  13. 

^Note  Origen's  query:  etirep  oSv  dik  'IdKcj^ov  X^yei  ffvfi^e^r)- 
Kevai  Tois  'lovSafots  rd  Kark  rriv  ipT^nuaiv  rrjs  'lepovaaX-fi/ji.,  ttwj 
oiix^  eiXoydrepov  dia  ''Itjctovp  top  "Kpicrrbv  toOto  (pdffKeiv  yeyovivai; 
{contra  Celsum,  I,  47;  cf.  II,  13). 

^It  is  true  that  Hegesippus,  according  to  Eusebius,  Hist. 
Eccl.,  II,  23,  blames  the  "Jews  and  Scribes  and  Pharisees"  for 
James'  death,  but  Hegesippus  is  much  less  likely  to  have  been 
well  informed  on  this  subject  than  is  Josephus. 


256  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

the  charge  of  lawbreaking  which  Ananus 
brought  against  James  was  not  an  expression 
of  popular  Jewish  opinion.  To  many  Jews 
Ananus  himself  was  the  real  lawbreaker.'  A 
favorable  reference  to  James,  like  the  similar 
reference  to  John  the  Baptist, ''  may  well  have 
been  original  with  Josephus.  And  it  was  not 
unnatural  to  identify  "Jacobus"  more  closely 
by  indicating  his  relationship  to  Jesus,  who  in 
turn  is  distinguished  from  various  other  persons 
of  the  same  name  by  reminding  Roman  read- 
ers that  they  commonly  called  this  individual 
"Christ."^  It  seems  quite  possible  that  Josephus 
did  mention  in  this  incidental  way  "Jesus,  the 
so-called  Christ." 

A  new  interest  in  Josephus  as  a  witness  for 
Christianity  has  recently  been  awakened  by 
Berendts'  work  on  the  Slavonic  version  of  the 
Jewish  War.""  According  to  this  translation 
Josephus  had  said  many  things,  not  contained 
in  the  ordinary  text,  about  John  the  Baptist 

"Cf.  Josephus,  A)il.,  XX,  ix,  i. 

»yl«^,  XVIII,  V,  2. 

3  Cf.  Pliny,  Suetonius,  Tacitus. 

*Die  Zeugnisse  votn  Chrisloiium  im  slavisclioi  "dc  hello 
judaico"  des  Josephus  (Texte  und  Untcrsuchungen,  XXIX,  4, 
Leipzig,  1906);  "Analecta  zum  slavischon  Josephus"  in  the  Zeil- 
schrift  fiir  die  nctitcstamcntliche  Wisscnscliafl,  IX  (1908),  47-70. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  257 

and  Jesus.  These  Slavonic  additions  have 
usually  been  treated  as  unauthentic  interpola- 
tions, but  Berendts  asserts  that  they  are  from 
the  hand  of  Josephus  himself.  His  view  in 
brief  is  this.  Starting  with  Josephus'  own 
statement  that  he  had  first  written  his  account 
of  the  war  in  his  native  tongue  and  dedicated 
it  to  the  "upper  barbarians,"  Berendts  infers 
that  the  Greek  rendering  which  Josephus  later 
made,  and  which  has  become  the  standard  text, 
was  really  a  revision  of  the  earlier  work.  This 
first  draft,  prepared  for  the  "upper  barbarians," 
had  also  been  translated  into  Greek,  and  be- 
came the  particular  source  of  the  present 
Slavonic  rendering.  In  this  Josephus  had 
spoken  of  Jesus  several  times,  but  in  preparing 
a  version  for  Roman  readers  he  exscinded  these 
passages. 

If  Berendts'  theory  were  estabhshed,  Jose- 
phus would  be  a  very  substantial  witness  for 
the  historicity  of  Jesus.  In  the  Slavonic  ver- 
sion the  story  of  Jesus'  life  is  told  in  outhne, 
his  superhuman  nature  is  clearly  acknowledged, 
his  marvelous  deeds  and  wonderful  teaching 
are  mentioned,  and  such  items  as  the  betrayal, 
crucifixion,  watch  at  the  tomb,  and  resurrection 
are  attested.     One  naturally  asks  whether  all 


258  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

this  may  not  be  the  work  of  a  Christian  hand, 
and  whether  the  data  are  not  derived  from 
the  gospels.  Berendts  answers  both  questions 
negatively.  He  finds  the  Slavonic  material  to 
be  different  from  the  Christian  interpolation 
in  the  accepted  text  of  Antiquities,  XVIII,  iii,  3. 
The  former  does  not  speak  of  Jesus'  messiah- 
ship,  nor  refer  to  his  fulfilment  of  prophecy. 
Arguments  from  interruption  of  the  context, 
foreign  style,  and  Origen's  assertion  that 
Josephus  did  not  acknowledge  Jesus'  messiah- 
ship,  urged  against  the  passage  in  the  An- 
tiquities, are  thought  to  have  no  force  here. 
Furthermore,  we  are  reminded  that  Josephus 
did  not  belong  to  that  side  of  Judaism  which 
would  be  most  hostile  to  Christianity,  so  his 
appreciation  of  Jesus  as  a  wonder-worker  can- 
not, on  merely  a-priori  grounds,  be  denied. 
The  argument  for  dependence  upon  the  gospels 
is  met  by  noting  that  the  contents  and  point 
of  view  in  the  Slavonic  material  do  not  corre- 
spond closely  with  the  gospel  narratives,  but 
are  at  times  so  different  that  they  can  hardly 
be  accounted  for  on  the  basis  of  these  sources 
alone.  Nor  do  any  apocryphal  writings  seem 
to  furnish  these  data.  Further,  Berendts  con- 
tends that  no  Christian  who  had  the  gospels 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  259 

would  be  interested  in  creating  the  accounts 
which  appear  in  the  Slavonic  version.  They 
must  come  from  a  Jew,  and  even  he  could 
hardly  have  written  as  he  did  later  than  the 
first  century  a.d.  That  is,  the  author  most 
probably  was  Josephus  himself,  so  Berendts 
concludes. 

These  arguments  are  scarcely  forceful  enough 
to  justify  us  in  accepting  the  data  of  the  Sla- 
vonic work  as  Josephus'  own  testimony  to 
Jesus.  In  the  first  place,  the  language  is  too 
appreciative  of  Jesus'  uniqueness  and  super- 
human character  to  have  come  from  anyone 
who  was  not  a  Christian.  WTiile  Jesus  is  said 
to  have  been  human  in  nature  and  form,  his 
appearing  was  more  than  human  and  his  works 
were  divine,  so  that  he  could  neither  be  called 
a  man  nor  an  angel.  He  is  the  unique  wonder- 
worker sent  forth  from  God.  This  surely  is 
Christian  language,  and  not  altogether  unlike 
some  ideas  in  the  Fourth  Gospel.  Failure  to 
call  Jesus  the  Messiah  seems  to  be  due  merely 
to  the  feeling  that  he  is  too  unique  to  be 
measured  adequately  by  the  messianic  concept. 
Again,  wide  variations  from  the  gospel  narra- 
tives, even  contradictions  of  these  narratives, 
cannot  establish  priority  for  the  variant  version. 


26o  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

The  apocryphal  gospels  show  clearly  that 
Christian  writers  familiar  with  gospel  tradition 
could  depart  from  it  widely.  We  cannot 
believe  that  we  are  here  dealing  with  direct 
testimony  from  Josephus.' 

Thus  Josephus  proves  to  be  of  only  slight 
value  as  a  source  of  information  about  Jesus. 
He  appears  to  have  known  of  Jesus'  existence, 
yet  he  mentions  him  only  casually  and  on  but 
one  occasion.  This  comparative  inattention 
to  Christianity  and  its  founder  has  occasioned 
frequent  comment.  Josephus  records  the  activ- 
ity of  certain  other  individuals  who  figure  only 
incidentally  in  Jewish  history,  for  example, 
Judas  of  Galilee,^  John  the  Baptist,^  Theudas,"* 
the  Egyptian,^  and  Jesus  who  prophesied  the 
ruin  of  Jerusalem.^    Why  should  he  not  speak 

'For  a  more  extended  criticism  of  Berendts'  position,  see 
Schiirer  in  the  Theologischc  Litcraturzeitung,  XXXI  (1906),  262  ff. 
He  thinks  the  Slavonic  work  is  originallj'  a  Christian  interpola- 
tion made  by  a  patripassionist  who  used  the  gospels  as  his  only 
sources  of  information.  Other  critics  would  save  a  part  of  the 
material  for  Josephus,  or  at  least  would  take  it  to  represent 
primitive  Jewish  tradition.  E.g.,  Goethals,  op.  cit.,  and  Jean 
precursciir  de  J6sus  (Bruxelles  et  Paris,  191 1);  Frey,  Der  slavische 
Josephusbcricht  iiber  die  urchrislliche  Geschichle  nehst  seinen 
Parallelen  krilisch  untcrsuchl  (Leipzig,  1908). 

"Ant.,  XVIII,  i,  I  fl.;    War,  II,  viii,  i. 

ilbid.,  XVIII,  V,  2.        ^Ibid.,  XX,  viii,  6;  War,  II,  xiii,  5. 

*Ihi(!.,XX,  V,  I.  ''War,  VI,  v,  3. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  261 

more  at  length  of  the  gospel  Jesus  whose  fol- 
lowers, like  those  of  Judas,  believed  their 
master  was  the  Messiah;  whose  preaching  to 
some  extent  resembled  John's;  whose  reputed 
prophecy  of  Jerusalem's  fall  was  not  wholly 
unlike  that  of  the  other  Jesus  ? 

Possibly  Josephus  deliberately  excluded  this 
subject.  Messianists  from  time  to  time  had 
caused  the  Roman  authorities  trouble,  conse- 
quently Josephus  may,  as  seems  likely  in  his 
treatment  of  Daniel,  have  purposely  slurred  over 
the  messianic  hopes  of  the  Jews.  He  can  speak 
of  messianic  agitators,  like  Judas,  Theudas,  and 
the  Egyptian,  who  have  failed  in  their  claims, 
and  he  can  dismiss  the  Jewish  messianic  proph- 
ecies by  implying  their  fulfilment  in  Vespasian, 
but  how  will  he  dispose  of  this  new  messianic 
movement,  Christianity,  which  the  Romans  of 
his  own  day  regard  with  disfavor  and  associate 
closely  with  the  Jews?  He  might  protest 
against  linking  this  "superstition,"  as  the 
Romans  called  it,  with  Judaism;  yet  he  could 
not  deny  that  its  sources  were  Jewish,  as  were 
also  its  traits  and  many  of  its  adherents. 
Silence  was  the  more  practical  policy.  To  recall 
that  Christianity,  at  the  time  an  unpopular 
movement  in  the  eyes  of  the  Roman  authori- 


262  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

ties,  was  of  Jewish  origin,  would  not  have 
added  to  the  respect  for  his  ancestors  and  their 
religion  which  Josephus  sought  to  inspire  in 
his  readers.  This  is  the  explanation  com- 
monly given  for  Josephus'  reserve  in  speaking 
of  Jesus  and  Christians.' 

But  may  not  indifference  on  Josephus'  part 
have  been  the  main  reason  for  his  "silence"? 
To  this  politician,  historian,  and  Jewish  apolo- 
gist, Christianity  is  not  likely  to  have  seemed 
particularly  significant.  Jesus'  career  had  been 
of  relatively  slight  importance  for  general 
Jewish  history.  His  contact  with  the  politics 
of  his  day  was  not  so  close  as  that  of  Judas  or 
Theudas,  or  even  of  John  the  Baptist.  Jesus 
had  not  figured  as  a  messianic  claimant,  at 
least  not  in  any  sense  which  would  appeal  to 
Josephus  as  real.  While  Jesus  seems  to  have 
been  condemned  on  the  formal  charge  of  claim- 

•E.g.,  Jiilicher  says:  "Von  ihnen  zu  schweigcn  war  klugere 
Taktik,  als  sic  miihsamvonden  Rockschossen  abzuschiitteln." — 
Hat  Jesus  gelchl?  p.  19.  Similarly  Weinel:  "Der  Grund  liegt 
aber  nicht  im  Christentum  oder  in  der  Nichtexistenz  Jesu,  son- 
dern  bei  Josephus,  der  ubrigens  auch  von  Johannes  dem  Taufer 
und  von  der  ganzcn  messianischcn  Bewegung  in  seinem  Volk  in 
einer  Weise  erzahlt,  die  den  Romern  die  Juden  als  moglichst  harm- 
lose  und  ruhige,  philosophische  Staatsbiirger  darstellen  soli." — 
1st  das  "Uberale^'  Jcsusbild  underlegl?  p.  107.  J.  Weiss,  on  the 
other  hand,  finds  in  Josephus'  comparative  silence  a  mark  of 
his  friendliness  toward  the  Christians  (Jesus  von  Xazarclh,  p.  91). 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  263 

ing  to  be  Messiah,  we  may  be  sure  it  was  not 
this  feature  in  his  career  which  had  primarily 
aroused  enmity.  The  Jews  were  not  treating 
their  messianic  aspirants  that  way.  Jesus 
refused  to  be  a  messianic  agitator  and  thus  he 
became,  from  a  standpoint  such  as  Josephus  is 
Hkely  to  have  taken,  a  neghgible  factor  in 
Jewish  history.  Even  for  Christians  themselves 
Jesus  was  primarily  the  coming  Messiah;  and 
the  notion  of  his  messianic  dignity  upon  earth 
was  not  at  first,  and  perhaps  did  not  for  some 
time  become,  a  fixed  idea  with  definite  content. 
Hence  for  Josephus  he  is  the  one  "called 
Christ" — not  a  messianic  claimant  of  the  past 
whose  career  has  any  important  relation  to  the 
religion,  politics,  and  life  of  the  Jews.  And 
as  for  the  Christian  movement  in  Josephus' 
own  day,  that  too  may  have  seemed  of  little 
account.  So  far  as  it  had  come  to  public  notice 
it  was  doubtless  confined  mainly  to  the  lower 
classes  of  society  with  whom  a  contemporary 
historian  would  have  little  concern.  This 
would  be  particularly  true  of  a  Roman,  and  we 
must  remember  that  Josephus  had  schooled 
himself  to  take  the  Roman  point  of  view. 

This  indifference  of  Josephus  is  not  so  sur- 
prising when  we  remember  that  he  does  not 


264  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

represent  the  phase  of  Judaism  with  which 
primitive  Christianity  came  into  closest  con- 
tact. If  we  had  access  to  the  life  and  thinking 
of  contemporary  rabbinical  Judaism  possibly 
we  should  find  more  frequent  reference  to 
Jesus.  Unfortunately  there  are  no  contempo- 
rary documents  to  supply  this  information ;  but 
there  are  three  main  sources  of  late  date  where 
one  might  conceivably  find  earlier  materials 
embedded.  These  are  (i)  Christian  references 
to  Jewish  opponents,  (2)  Talmudic  statements 
about  Jesus,  and  (3)  the  so-called  ToVdoth  Jeshu 
stories. 

The  New  Testament  shows  Christianity  and 
Judaism  in  conflict  with  one  another  even  as 
early  as  Paul's  day,  a  situation  which  seems  to 
have  perpetuated  itself,  at  least  so  far  as  con- 
ditions on  gentile  soil  were  concerned,  all 
through  the  New  Testament  period.  We  know 
that  the  opposition  between  the  two  was  also 
bitter  at  an  early  date  in  Palestine,  and  it  may 
have  continued  so,  even  though  literary  evi- 
dence for  the  later  situation  is  now  wanting. 
The  New  Testament  writings  do  not  state  with 
any  fulness  the  specific  grounds  of  Jewish 
hostility.  Why  was  Paul  so  bitterly  persecut- 
ing  the    Christians,   pursuing   them   even   to 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  265 

Damascus  ?  He  says  he  was  exceedingly  zeal- 
ous for  the  traditions  of  the  fathers.^  It  is  not 
improbable  that  Christians,  especially  among 
the  Hellenists,  may  have  manifested  some 
laxity  toward  the  ritual  law;  but  this  will 
scarcely  have  been  so  prominent  a  feature  of  the 
new  movement  at  this  early  date  that  it  can 
have  been  the  sole  ground  of  Paul's  hostility. 
Moreover  Paul's  enthusiasm  was  of  a  distinctly 
religious  t}^e;  he  was  seeking  to  do  the  will  of 
God  in  order  to  obtain  salvation.  But  his 
conversion  to  Christianity  meant  that  he  now 
found  the  way  to  salvation  in  that  which 
had  formerly  been  the  greatest  of  stumbling- 
blocks.  Hence  when  he  states  the  chief  ground 
of  his  hope  as  a  Christian,  he  probably  reveals 
the  item  in  Christian  teaching  which  had 
formerly  incensed  him  most,  namely,  the  con- 
fession of  Jesus'  lordship  as  the  result  of  belief 
in  Jesus'  resurrection.^  It  is  this  confession  of 
Jesus'  lordship,  based  upon  the  resurrection 
faith  and  issuing  in  the  belief  that  Jesus  will 

'Gal.  1:14. 

^Cf.  Rom.  10:9.  We  have  pointed  out  in  the  Journal  of 
Biblical  Literature,  XXVI  (1907),  1 51-61,  that  belief  in  Jesus' 
lordship  was  characteristic  of  Christianity  even  before  Paul 's 
day.  This  view  is  still  further  substantiated  by  Bacon,  "Jesus 
as  Lord"  in  the  Harvard  Theological  Review,  IV  (191 1),  204-28. 


266  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

in  future  appear  in  messianic  glory,  that  con- 
stituted the  basis  of  controversy  between  Jews 
and  Christians.  The  latter  worked  up  their 
side  of  the  argument  by  dwelling  upon  Jesus' 
miracle-working  ability,  his  pre-existence,  his 
miraculous  birth,  and  the  like.  Jews,  on  the 
other  hand,  taking  their  cue  from  the  Chris- 
tians' preaching,  sought  to  cast  doubt  upon 
Jesus'  resurrection,  pronounced  his  miracles  to 
be  merely  the  practice  of  Egyptian  magic,  and 
converted  the  story  of  his  virgin  birth  into  a 
charge  of  illegitimate  parentage. 

These  are  the  problems  confronted  by 
Christian  apologists  in  the  days  of  Justin  and 
Origen,  but  in  all  probability  similar  questions 
were  debated  at  a  much  earlier  date.  They  too 
are  the  points  about  which  the  Talmudic  refer- 
ences to  Jesus  revolve.^  Though  the  Talmud 
in  its  present  form  does  not  carry  us  back  be- 
yond the  fourth  and  fifth  centuries  a.d.,  the 
Mishna  probably  reflects  views  of  earlier  rab- 
binical opponents  like  Rabbi  Akiba,  who,  in 
turn,  may  have  perpetuated  arguments  and 
criticisms  already  in  vogue  at  an  earlier  date. 
The  Tol'doth  Jeshu,  however,  is  a  much  later 

'We  may  pass  this  material  by  thus  briefly,  since  Strack's 
Jesus,  die  Harelikcr  uud  die  Christen  msikcs  it  so  easily  accessible. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  267 

product,  which  it  seems  vain  to  attempt  to 
connect  with  primitive  tradition.^  The  one 
fact  which  impresses  us  in  this  conflict  of  argu- 
ment between  Christians  and  Jews  is  the  com- 
mon acceptance  of  behef  in  Jesus'  earthly  exist- 
ence, and  the  offense  taken  by  the  Jews  at  the 
reverence  rendered  him  by  Christians.  In  this 
respect  Jewish  sources  corroborate  the  early 
Christian  testimony  to  Jesus'  existence. 

It  may  be  urged  by  the  radicals  that  this 
whole  survey  of  the  extra-biblical  sources 
yields  no  testimony  which  is  independent  of 
Christian  influence.  Tacitus  may  have  taken 
his  information  from  Christian  tradition,  it 
might  also  be  said  that  Josephus  knew  of 
Jesus  only  through  Christian  sources,  and  the 
early  Jewish  opponents  of  Christianity  admit- 
tedly created  their  polemic  as  an  offset  to 
Christian  preaching.  Yet  it  does  not  follow 
that  this  testimony  is  wholly  valueless,  much 
less  that  its  relative  scantiness  and  secondary 
character  is  a  positive  argument  against  Jesus' 
historicity.  As  we  have  often  remarked,  this 
testimony,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  all  corroborative 

'  S.  Krauss,  Das  Leben  Jesti  nacli  jiidischen  Quellen  (Berlin, 
1902)  edits  and  translates  this  material.  Cf.  also  E.  Bischoff, 
Ein  jiidisch-dculsches  Lcben  Jesu   (Leipzig,    1895). 


268  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

of,  and  never  contradictory  to,  Jesus'  his- 
toricity. And  as  for  its  scantiness,  that  is 
determined  by  the  particular  circumstances 
under  which  the  hterature  took  shape  and  the 
purpose  it  was  intended  to  serve.  To  admit 
that  it  may  all  be  secondary  to  New  Testament 
data  is  a  chronological  necessity,  since  the 
sources  examined  are  all  of  later  date  than  the 
earliest  oral  or  written  Christian  tradition. 

But  it  cannot  really  be  a  matter  of  any  great 
importance  that  a  Roman  historian  of  the 
second  century  a.d.,  or  Josephus  at  the  end  of 
the  first  century,  and  the  Talmudists  of  a  still 
later  date  have  so  little  to  say  of  the  earthly 
Jesus.  In  the  nature  of  the  case  they  could  not 
speak  at  first-hand,  and  such  information  as 
they  would  have  been  able  to  gather  from  non- 
Christian  sources  can  hardly  have  been  marked 
by  anything  like  the  intelligence  which  would 
characterize  the  information  given  by  personal 
associates  and  friends  of  Jesus.  To  suppose 
that  contemporary  non-Christian  sources  would 
give  us  a  more  purely  judicial  estimate  of  the 
facts  is  to  presuppose  that  non-Christian 
writers  of  the  day  were  exponents  of  modern 
critical  methods  of  historical  research.  This 
we  know  not  to  be  true. 


Extra-Biblical  Evidence  269 

The  evidence  for  Jesus'  existence  is  derived 
mainly  from  Christian  sources.  If  it  is  urged 
that  his  existence  cannot  be  "proved,"  as  a 
mathematical  theorem  perhaps  it  cannot.  But 
it  is  equally  true  that  such  a  proof  of  his 
non-historicity  is  also  out  of  the  question.  In 
matters  of  history  "proof  "  can  only  mean  a  rea- 
sonable certainty  based  upon  the  available  data ; 
and,  after  all,  mathematical  demonstration  has 
no  more  ultimate  criterion  of  validity  than  that 
of  reasonableness.  The  New  Testament  data 
are  perfectly  clear  in  their  testimony  to  the 
reality  of  Jesus'  earthly  career,  and  they  come 
from  a  time  when  the  possibility  that  the  early 
framers  of  tradition  should  have  been  deceived 
upon  this  point  is  out  of  the  question.  Not 
only  does  Paul  make  the  historical  personality 
of  Jesus  a  necessary  preliminary  to  his  gospel, 
but  the  whole  situation  in  which  Paul  moves 
shows  a  historical  background  in  which  memory 
of  this  individual  is  central.  The  earliest 
phases  of  gospel  tradition  have  their  roots  in 
Palestinian  soil  and  reach  back  to  the  period 
when  personal  associates  of  Jesus  were  still 
living;  while  primitive  Christology  shows  dis- 
tinct traces  of  Jesus  the  man  of  Galilee  behind 
its  faith  in  the  heavenly  Christ.    The  disciples' 


270  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

personal  memory  of  this  Jesus  of  real  life  is  also 
the  fountain  from  which  the  peculiarly  forceful 
type  of  the  new  community's  vitality  takes  its 
start. 


CHAPTER  IX 

JESUS  THE  HISTORICAL  FOUNDER  OF 
CHRISTIANITY 

Assured  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  was  a  his- 
torical person,  we  may  now  consider  briefly  the 
rehgious  significance  of  this  fact.  In  the  first 
place,  can  he  justly  be  called  the  founder  of 
Christianity  ? 

Our  answer  to  this  question  will  depend 
upon  what  is  understood  by  "Christianity" 
in  this  connection.  If  it  is  defined  simply 
as  "religion,"  then  Jesus  cannot  be  called  its 
founder,  for  the  world  already  possessed  a 
variety  of  religions  before  he  and  his  apostles 
appeared  upon  the  scene.  The  Jews  for  cen- 
turies had  believed  themselves  to  be  in  posses- 
sion of  a  peculiar  religious  heritage,  and  the 
gentiles  were,  in  their  own  way,  also  highly 
religious.  Nor  is  Christianity  unlikely  to  have 
had  many  things  in  common  with  other  faiths. 
This  would  be  made  necessary  by  the  very 
circumstances  of  the  time.  Christianity's  advo- 
cates had  to  solve  the  same  general  problems 
as  other  religious  teachers,  and  in  the  main 
they  had  to  employ  for  this  purpose  the  common 
271 


272  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

stock  of  religious  phraseology  and  thinking. 
Especially  is  it  difficult  to  isolate  the  new  reli- 
gion from  its  very  definite  Jewish  setting.  The 
members  of  the  primitive  community  were 
Jews  by  birth,  and  even  as  Christians  they  con- 
tinued to  honor  the  ancestral  faith.  They 
inherited  their  Bible  and  many  of  their  theo- 
logical ideas  from  Jewish  sources,  and  instead 
of  endeavoring  to  establish  an  entirely  new 
religion  they  aimed  to  bring  to  completion  what 
they  believed  to  be  the  true  Judaism.  Jesus 
cannot  be  called  the  founder  of  Christianity  in 
the  sense  of  supplying  all  its  phases  de  novo. 
It  is  equally  impossible  to  suppose  that  Chris- 
tianity was  a  finished  product  in  Jesus '  day,  or 
that  it  came  into  being  full-fledged  at  some 
particular  moment  in  history.  On  the  con- 
trary, it  is  a  growth.  We  may  assume  that 
its  basal  elements  are  to  be  found  in  the  teach- 
ing and  work  of  Jesus,  still  these  historical 
data  had  to  be  supplemented  by  the  disciples' 
experience  and  interpretation  before  the  new 
religion  could  claim  an  existence  in  any  formal 
sense.  Even  in  the  most  primitive  period  of 
its  life  it  is  not  a  fixed  unit  which  one  may 
isolate  and  call  "original  Christianity."  For 
instance,  it  is  doubtful  whether  there  was  ever 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     273 

a  time  when  all  members  of  the  community 
agreed  absolutely  on  all  questions  of  belief  and 
practice.  At  any  rate  we  know  there  were 
differences  of  opinion  and  even  disputes  and 
dissensions  at  a  very  early  date,^  Christianity 
is  not  a  static  thing;  it  is  a  movement,  to  whose 
origin  and  development  many  factors  contri- 
bute. Nor  can  it  be  called  the  work  of  one 
individual.  Many  persons  contributed  toward 
its  making;  it  embodied  the  social  experiences 
of  several  successive  generations. 

Except  in  a  very  academic  sense,  all  religions 
are  complex  products,  effected  by  an  evolu- 
tionary process  extending  over  a  more  or  less 
lengthy  period.  Yet  we  speak  of  the  "found- 
ers" of  religion — not  meaning  that  various  indi- 
viduals and  different  ideas  have  not  been 
instrumental  in  the  creation  of  most  historic 
faiths,  but  indicating  that  some  one  person 
reacted  so  significantly  upon  contemporary  life 
and  thinking  that  he  so  revitalized  existing 
forces,  or  introduced  new  ones,  as  to  bring 
about  a  movement  sufficiently  distinctive  to  be 
termed  a  new  religion.  Thus  to  say  that  any 
individual  "founded"  a  religion  can  only  mean 
that  he  furnished  the  initial  impetus  without 

'Acts  6:1;  15: 1,  39;  Gal.  2:11;  I  Cor.  i :  10. 


274  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

which,  historically  speaking,  the  new  move- 
ment would  not  have  come  into  being.  Is 
Jesus  to  be  credited  with  having  done  this  for 
Christianity  ?  And,  if  so,  what  constituted 
his  distinctive  work  as  a  "founder"? 

It  used  to  be  supposed  that  he  had  person- 
ally provided  the  new  religion  with  certain 
fundamentals  of  organization.  He  had  spoken 
of  a  "church"  of  which  Peter  was  to  be  the 
corner-stone,^  he  had  explicitly  authenticated 
the  rite  of  baptism,^  and  had  enjoined  upon 
believers  the  perpetuation  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per.^ But  "liberal"  critics  now  tell  us  that 
these  items  in  the  tradition  are  uncertain  his- 
torically. They  may  be  only  the  primitive 
community's  formulations  to  meet  its  own 
needs,  stated  in  the  light  of  its  developing  life 
and  under  the  conviction  that  the  real  inten- 
tion of  Jesus  was  thus  coming  to  fulfilment. 
On  this  understanding  of  the  situation  Jesus 
cannot  be  called  the  founder  of  that  organiza- 
tion, with  its  rites  and  customs,  which  the  new 
movement  adopted  in  the  effort  to  make  itself 
effective. 

'Matt.  i6:i8.  'Matt.  28:19. 

^Mark  14:22-24;  Matt.  26:26-28;  Luke  22:19  f.;  I  Cor. 
11:23-26.  The  specific  command  "do  this  in  remembrance  of 
me"  appears  only  in  Luke  and  Paul. 


JesHS  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     275 

Is  he  not  more  certainly  sponsor  for  the  con- 
tent of  the  new  faith?  Did  he  not  found 
Christianity  by  becoming  the  center  of  early 
dogma  and  the  object  of  believers '  reverence  ? 
Of  course  it  was  not  "Jesus,"  but  rather  the 
heavenly  Christ,  who  first  attracted  the  theo- 
logians' attention  and  formed  the  objective  of 
their  worship.  The  earthly  Jesus  therefore  can 
hardly  be  called  the  real  founder  of  the  new 
apologetic,  unless  it  is  evident  that  his  career 
upon  earth  was  an  essential  factor  in  preparing 
the  way  for  and  engendering  the  christological 
speculation  which  elevated  him,  after  his  death, 
to  a  place  beside  God.  But  did  Jesus  by  his 
teaching  attempt  to  school  his  disciples  to  think 
of  him  in  this  way  ?  Even  in  the  latest  parts 
of  synoptic  tradition  he  is  not  represented  as 
demanding  worship  from  his  followers,  while  in 
the  earliest  narrative  his  claims  for  himself  are 
quite  obscured  by  the  hearing  he  would  win 
for  his  message,  in  which  God  only  is  set  forward 
as  the  object  of  man's  supreme  regard.  Much 
less  can  it  be  affirmed  that  his  teaching  supplied 
the  whole  framework  of  primitive  christological 
speculation. 

Sometimes  it  is  said  that  Jesus  founded 
Christianity   by   his   death   and   resurrection. 


276  The  Hisloricily  of  Jesus 

These  manifestly  are  important  items  in  the 
genesis  of  the  new  faith.  Without  his  tragic 
death  the  way  would  not  have  been  prepared 
for  that  item  in  his  saving  work  of  which  Paul 
makes  so  much,  nor  could  belief  in  his  heavenly 
lordship  have  arisen  except  through  the  con- 
viction that  he  had  been  transferred  from  the 
abode  of  the  dead  to  a  position  beside  God  in 
heaven.  But  there  must  have  been  more  than 
the  mere  fact  of  his  death  behind  the  early 
doctrine  of  atonement,  for  other  heroes  had 
died  ^vithout  being  so  regarded.  Not  the  mere 
fact  of  death  but  the  t^'pe  of  person  who  had 
died  seems  to  have  been  the  determining  factor 
in  the  situation.  Still  it  is  doubtful  whether 
Jesus '  death  would  have  been  interpreted  messi- 
anically  prior  to  belief  in  his  resurrection,  and 
this  leads  us  to  question  whether  the  life  of  the 
earthly  Jesus  has  any  fundamental  connection 
with  the  genesis  of  the  resurrection  faith. 

If  the  first  disciples  had  been  asked  this 
question  they  would  not  improbably  have 
answered  it  negatively.  Tradition  is  almost 
uniform  in  representing  that  their  faith  did  not 
grow  out  of  Jesus'  affirmations  of  messiahship, 
nor  did  it  spring  from  predictions  of  his  death 
and  resurrection.     It  was  only  after  they  came 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     277 

to  believe  that  he  had  risen  that  these  items  of 
tradition  took  on  distinctiveness  and  real  mean- 
ing. We  cannot  here  examine  at  length  the 
first  Christians'  resurrection  faith/  but  evi- 
dently they  traced  its  origin  to  visions  of  the 
risen  and  glorified  Jesus.  For  them  it  was  no 
mere  problem  of  logical  inference  from  histori- 
cal data;  it  was  an  overmastering  ecstatic 
experience.  Yet  experience  must  have  its 
background  and  its  constituent  elements,  and 
in  the  disciples '  case  the  memory  of  the  earthly 
Jesus  was  probably  a  very  important  factor  in 
the  situation.  Even  if  we  should  accept  with- 
out question — as  probably  the  disciples  did — 
the  objective  reality  of  their  vision,  we  should 
still  have  to  ask  why  they  connected  the  heav- 
enly apparition  with  the  historical  figure  of  Jesus 
of  Nazareth.  This  was  not  the  only  conceiv- 
able course  open  to  them.  They  might  have 
abandoned  Jesus  entirely,  saying  that  he  had 
disappointed  their  expectations,  that  his  claims 
had  been  discredited  by  death,  and  that  God 
had  now  shown  to  them  in  a  vision  the  true 
heavenly  Messiah  for  whom  they  were  to  wait. 
This  however  was  not  the  course  they  pursued. 

'Reference  may  here  be  niade  to  the  present  writer's  "The 
Resurrection  Faith  of  the  First  Disciples"  in  the  American 
Journal  of  Theology,  XIII  (1909),  169-92. 


278  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

They  were  confident  that  it  was  Jesus  whom 
they  had  seen,  and  everything  depended  upon 
the  recognition  of  this  fact.  The  fundamental 
surety  of  their  faith  was  the  conviction  that 
Jesus — Jesus  of  Nazareth,  with  whom  they  had 
associated  in  the  daily  walks  of  life,  he  who  had 
inspired  their  discipleship  and  whose  personal 
influence  had  left  its  indelible  mark  upon 
them — had  survived  the  obliterating  stroke  of 
death.  Memory  of  him  is  inseparably  linked 
with  the  primitive  resurrection  faith.  The 
individual  whom  they  saw  was  the  one  whom 
they  longed  to  see — a  fact  which,  according  to 
our  modern  understanding  of  vision  experiences, 
enables  us  to  appreciate  the  important  part 
which  memory  of  Jesus'  life  and  personality 
played  in  the  genesis  of  the  new  faith. 

The  result  of  connecting  thus  closely  the 
messianic  hope  with  a  historical  individual  was 
to  give  special  prominence  to  the  personal 
element  in  religious  life,  for  which  memory  of 
Jesus'  own  religious  personality  supplied  inspi- 
ration and  ideals.  To  be  sure,  this  fact  is 
not  set  in  the  foreground  of  gospel  tradition. 
Here,  as  would  be  expected,  stress  falls  upon 
more  formal  phases  of  early  theology;  yet  it  is 
not  difficult  to  perceive,  beneath  the  interpreta- 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  oj  Christianity     279 

tive  apologetic  of  the  disciples,  the  vital  sub- 
stratum of  their  personal  experience  with  the 
great  teacher.  The  abiding  influence  of  his 
life  was  such  that  they  found  it  possible  to 
ascribe  to  him  the  most  exalted  ideas  which 
the  theological  thinking  of  their  age  could 
create.  Furthermore  they  acknowledged  that 
during  his  lifetime  they  had  not  been  powerfully 
impressed  by  his  official  dignity.  They  did  not 
recognize  his  messiahship  until  near  the  close  of 
his  ministry,  they  failed  utterly  to  comprehend 
his  references  to  his  death  and  resurrection,  they 
forsook  him  at  his  trial,  and  disbanded  without 
hope  after  his  crucifixion.  Previously  they  may 
have  hoped  he  would  declare  himself  to  be 
Israel's  deliverer,  and  some  bolder  spirits  such 
as  Peter  may  have  openly  expressed  the  convic- 
tion that  he  would,  but  still  their  messianic  hope 
can  hardly  have  been  more  than  a  vague  expecta- 
tion conditioned  upon  some  further  demonstra- 
tion of  God 's  favor  for  Jesus.  Once  convinced 
that  the  divine  favor  was  removed — and  Jesus' 
death  was  at  first  taken  to  mean  this — their 
messianic  faith  was  quickly  shaken.  The 
message  they  heard  from  the  cross  was  not 
one  of  victory  but  one  of  defeat:  "My  God, 
my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken  me?" 


28o  The  His  tor  icily  of  Jesus 

The  memory  of  personal  association  with 
Jesus  could  not  be  so  easily  dismissed.  As 
their  faith  in  his  official  significance  during  his 
lifetime  was  only  secondary  to  their  response 
to  his  message  about  God  and  to  their  con- 
sciousness that  he  touched  many  a  sensitive 
chord  in  their  own  religious  lives,  so  after  his 
death  they  probably  suffered  more  keenly  the 
loss  of  daily  fellowship  with  him  than  the 
abandonment  of  their  faltering  messianic  faith. 
Hence  the  supremely  significant  item  in  their 
vision  experiences  was  not  a  belief  that  they 
had  seen  the  heavenly  Messiah,  but  a  convic- 
tion that  they  had  seen  "Jesus. "  Though  their 
new  activity  was  much  concerned  with  interpre- 
tative items  of  thinking,  in  their  common  daily 
walk  the  earthly  Jesus  came  to  life  again  in 
their  memory.  They  ate  together  in  loving 
recollection  of  their  former  fellowship  with 
him,  they  recalled  his  life  of  unselfish  loyalty 
to  the  will  of  God,  and  they  felt  a  new  power 
and  meaning  in  the  words  he  had  spoken.  The 
impress  his  personality  left  upon  them  con- 
tained an  element  of  vitality,  interpreted  by 
them  in  terms  of  resurrection  faith,  which  was 
more  enduring  than  all  their  former  messianic 
expectations,   and  in   turn   became  the  basis 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     281 

of  a  new  messianic  hope.  Thus  the  secret 
of  Jesus'  influence  upon  the  disciples  must 
ultimately  be  sought  in  the  content  of  his 
own  religious  life  during  the  period  of  his 
association  with  them.  In  the  last  analysis  it 
was  his  power  as  a  religious  individual  that 
made  possible  the  early  faith;  the  personal 
religion  of  Jesus  was  the  foundation  of  the 
disciples'  religion  about  Jesus. 

Therefore,  to  understand  Jesus'  position  as 
the  historical  founder  of  Christianity  we  must 
comprehend  more  fully  than  is  often  done  the 
character  of  his  own  religious  individuality. 
His  personal  religious  life  has  not  always 
received  the  consideration  it  deserves.  Atten- 
tion has  been  centered  on  other,  and  perhaps 
less  significant,  phases  of  his  career.  His 
miracle-working  power,  the  theological  impli- 
cations of  his  teachings,  metaphysical  specu- 
lation about  his  unique  personality,  these  things 
have  sometimes  been  made  the  chief  items 
of  interest,  while  his  significance  as  a  religious 
individual  has  been  overlooked.  Believers 
have  been  wont  to  regard  him  so  exclusively 
as  the  object  of  their  own  religious  reverence, 
and  consequently  have  sometimes  removed  him 
so  far  from  the  normal  relations  of  a  historical 


282  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

person,  that  they  have  been  in  danger  of  miss- 
ing the  inspiration  to  be  derived  from  spiritual 
sympathy  with  him  in  his  own  deep  rehgious 
experience. 

In  accordance  with  our  previous  conclusions, 
we  shall  expect  to  find  the  actual  religion  of 
Jesus  represented  most  truly  in  the  words  and 
deeds  reported  in  connection  with  his  ordinar^^ 
daily  life.  Those  phases  of  tradition  which 
appear  to  be  in  the  main  uninfluenced  by 
special  doctrinal  interests  form  a  safer  guide 
for  our  study.  It  is  necessary,  too,  to  remember 
that  Jesus'  personal  religion  is  concrete,  in 
contrast  with  formal  and  abstract  theories 
about  his  person.  He  was  connected  with  a 
past  which  played  its  part  in  the  process  of  his 
development,  he  was  surrounded  by  definite 
historical  circumstances,  and  he  was  equipped 
with  his  own  personal  inclinations,  his  own 
emotional  characteristics,  his  own  intellectual 
life,  and  his  own  spiritual  experience.  At  this 
late  date  it  is,  in  the  nature  of  the  case,  impos- 
sible to  know  everything  we  should  like  to 
know  about  the  historical  Jesus,  but  we  may 
hope  to  learn  something  of  the  main  character- 
istics of  his  daily  life  which  most  impressed  his 
associates. 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity    283 

In  attempting  to  grasp  the  main  content  of 
Jesus'  religion,  one  may  seek,  (i)  those  items 
that  belong  primarily  in  the  realm  of  experi- 
ence, (2)  the  interpretation  which  was  placed 
upon  experience,  and  (3)  the  practical  appli- 
cation of  religion  to  life.  The  first  topic  per- 
tains more  particularly  to  the  source  elements 
in  Jesus'  religion,  the  second  directs  attention 
to  the  doctrinal  content  of  his  faith;  while  the 
third  is  concerned  with  social  and  ethical 
aspects  of  his  thinking.  We  are  not  to  imagine 
that  Jesus '  religion  can  be  literally  divided  into 
distinct  and  unrelated  compartments;  our 
analysis  is  adopted  solely  for  the  purpose  of 
convenience  in  handling  the  data. 

The  sources  of  Jesus'  religion  must  have 
been  manifold.  He  inherited  richly  from  the 
past.  For  centuries  the  Jews  had  inculcated 
in  their  children  reverence  for  God  and  loyalty 
to  his  cause,  and  from  this  atmosphere  Jesus 
had  doubtless  absorbed  many  things  that  were 
determinative  for  his  career.  His  contact  with 
the  professional  religionists  of  his  time  may 
not  have  been  intimate,  but  he  probably  suf- 
fered no  great  disadvantage  on  this  account. 
The  cultivation  of  the  pious  life  through  the 
consciousness  of  God's  nearness  to  his  people 


284  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

was  quite  as  possible  in  remote  Nazareth  as  in 
the  Holy  City;  indeed  those  who  were  free 
from  the  constant  demands  of  external  cere- 
mony were,  on  that  very  account,  more  likely 
to  preserve  a  deeper  spiritual  \itality.  Heart 
purity,  pious  conduct,  sincere  motives,  and 
humility  before  God  were  less  stimulated  by 
attendance  upon  the  temple  services  than  by 
the  study  of  the  great  religious  teachers  of  the 
past;   for  instance,  the  words  of  Micah: 

Wherewith  shall  I  come  before  Jehovah,  and  bow 
myself  before  the  high  God  ?  Shall  I  come  before  him 
with  burnt  offerings,  with  calves  of  a  year  old  ?  Will 
Jehovah  be  pleased  with  thousands  of  rams,  with  ten 
thousands  of  rivers  of  oil  ?  Shall  I  give  my  first-born 
for  my  transgression,  the  fruit  of  my  body  for  the  sin 
of  my  soul?  He  hath  showed  thee,  0  man,  what  is 
good;  and  what  doth  Jehovah  require  of  thee,  but  to 
do  justly,  and  to  love  kindness,  and  to  walk  humbly 
with  thy  God  ? 

The  Jewish  Scriptures  in  general  must  have 
exerted  a  strong  influence  upon  Jesus.  In  the 
course  of  his  teaching  he  shows  much  famili- 
arity with  this  literature.  He  frequently  quotes 
it,  sometimes  in  criticism  but  oftener  with 
approval,  and  he  gives  ample  evidence  of  having 
absorbed  its  spirit.  As  would  be  expected 
from   his   early   training,  his   sympathy  with 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity    285 

the  prophets  was  especially  close.  His  career 
seemed  in  many  respects  a  repetition  of  theirs, 
his  preaching  resembled  theirs  in  that  he  stood 
for  the  moral  issues  in  contrast  with  ceremonial- 
ism, and  he  anticipated  for  himself  a  fate  like 
theirs  in  the  sacred  city  which  had  stoned  the 
prophets.^  He  also  drew  from  the  lawgivers 
and  the  sages.  The  law  which  required  love 
for  God  with  all  one's  heart  and  the  love  of 
neighbor  as  oneself  was  accepted  by  Jesus  as 
fundamental.  Likewise  the  sage's  emphasis 
upon  practical  precepts  and  individual  right 
living  found  a  large  place  in  his  teaching,  but 
behind  all  these  lay  the  prophet 's  consciousness 
of  an  immediate  relationship  between  man  and 
God. 

A  more  specffic  factor  in  influencing  Jesus, 
and  one  more  directly  connected  with  his 
appearance  as  a  public  teacher,  was  his  contact 
with  John  the  Baptist.  Just  what  his  experi- 
ence was  in  this  connection  began  to  trouble 
interpreters  at  an  early  date.  That  he  came 
to  John's  baptism  of  repentance  might  seem 
incompatible  with  his  consciousness  of  purity, 
and  indeed  his  baptism  furnished  a  distinct 

'Malt.  23:37.  Jesus'  anticipation  of  stoning  at  the  hands 
of  the  mob  points  to  the  genuineness  of  the  passage. 


286  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

doctrinal  difficulty  when  his  sinlessness  became 
an  item  of  dogma.  Various  suggestions  were 
made  to  obviate  the  difficulty.  The  uncanoni- 
cal  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews  explains 
the  event  as  follows:  "Behold  the  Lord's 
mother  and  brothers  said  to  him,  John  the 
Baptist  is  baptizing  for  remission  of  sins;  let 
us  go  and  be  baptized  by  him.  But  he  said  to 
them,  What  sin  have  I  done  that  I  should  go 
and  be  baptized  by  him;  unless  perhaps  what 
I  have  now  said  is  ignorance?"  This  has 
sometimes  been  treated  as  a  genuine  saying, 
but  it  probably  is  a  later  development  of  tradi- 
tion. It  attaches  a  sacramental  significance 
to  baptism,  making  the  ordinance  efficacious 
for  a  sin  of  ignorance;  and  the  whole  story 
seems  to  have  arisen  by  projecting  into  Jesus' 
pre-public  career  the  same  misunderstanding 
of  his  true  character  which,  according  to  Mark, 
his  relatives  shared  during  his  ministry.  The 
Gospel  of  Matthew  offers  another  explanation. 
John's  objection  is  overruled  by  the  words: 
"Suffer  it  now,  for  thus  it  becometh  us  to  fulfil 
all  righteousness."  When  baptism  became  a 
recognized  church  ordinance  Jesus'  action 
seemed  best  explained  as  an  example  for  his 
followers.     For    the    Fourth    Evangelist    the 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity    287 

baptism  of  Jesus  and  the  descent  of  the  Spirit 
were  chiefly  for  the  benefit  of  John.  Thus  he 
was  enabled  to  recognize  the  Messiah  and  to 
point  him  out  to  his  own  followers. 

No  one  of  these  explanations  is  sufficiently 
well  attested  to  justify  its  use  in  determining 
the  experience  of  Jesus.  At  the  time  there  was 
no  occasion  for  any  explanatory  comments; 
the  procedure  was  a  perfectly  natural  one  on 
Jesus '  part.  John  indeed  preached  repentance 
and  coming  judgment,  but  he  also  put  stress 
upon  the  positive  qualities  of  a  holy  life — "bring 
forth  fruit  worthy  of  repentance."^  Personal 
purity  of  life  was  a  prerequisite  for  membership 
in  John 's  community,  just  the  type  of  life  after 
which  the  pious  people  of  the  land  were  daily 
striving.  Others  must  repent  and  forsake  their 
sins,  but  it  would  be  unsafe  to  suppose  that 
only  persons  of  this  class  came  to  be  baptized — 
as  absurd  as  to  conclude  that  everyone  in  mod- 
ern times  who  joins  a  movement  for  social 
betterment  must  previously  have  been  a  social 

'Josephus  says  of  John's  baptism:  "It  signified  the  puri- 
fication of  the  body,  supposing  that  the  soul  was  thoroughly 
purified  beforehand  by  righteousness"  (/1«/.,XVIII,  v,  2).  Accord- 
ing to  Matt.  21:32  Jesus  said:  "John  came  unto  you  in  the  way 
of  righteousness."  This  is  often  called  a  characteristic  addi- 
tion of  the  First  Evangelist;  but  it  agrees  with  Mark's  account 
of  John,  the  righteous  and  holy  man  whom  Herod  feared. 


288  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

outcast.  All  that  may  be  inferred  from  Jesus' 
action  in  coming  to  John's  baptism  is  that  it 
marked  a  decisive  step  in  his  active  life.  It 
was  the  response  of  his  own  pious  life  to  the 
religious  ideals  for  which  John  stood. 

As  a  result  of  this  action  Jesus'  religious 
experience  would  naturally  be  quickened  and 
deepened.  According  to  early  tradition  he 
received  at  this  time  an  official  declaration  of 
his  messiahship;  but  the  baptismal  incident 
is  told  so  briefly,  and  in  a  form  that  lies  so  close 
to  the  peculiar  interests  of  the  early  theologians, 
that  it  does  not  clearly  reveal  the  actual  content 
of  Jesus'  experience.  This  picturesque  descrip- 
tion— the  rending  of  heaven,  the  descending 
dove,  and  the  audible  utterance  of  God — shows 
the  primitive  Christians'  fondness  for  vivid 
imagery,  while  the  prominence  given  to  the 
ecstatic  element  in  their  own  lives  easily  led 
them  to  interpret  Jesus'  experience  in  terms 
of  ecstasy.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  primal 
item  in  his  experience  at  this  time  was  not  his 
sense  of  new  consecration  to  God  as  a  spiritual 
father  rather  than  a  recognition  of  God 's  choice 
of  him  as  a  messianic  son.  The  account  of  his 
temptation  which  tradition  has  placed  in  close 
connection  with  his  baptism  may  have  been 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     289 

framed  to  furnish  scriptural  authentication  for 
Jesus'  failure  to  display  at  once  messianic  pre- 
rogatives, yet  it  testifies  to  the  fact  that  he  did 
not,  as  the  early  Christians  well  knew,  at  the 
beginning  of  his  ministry  present  himself  as 
Messiah — at  least  not  as  the  t}^e  of  Messiah 
currently  expected.  And  if  he  entertained  the  • 
idea  at  all,  he  possessed  some  deeper  experi- 
ence which  impelled  him  to  reinterpret  this  as 
well  as  other  ideas  of  the  time.  The  messianic 
thought  did  not  master  him;  he  was  its  con- 
queror not  its  victim,  and  he  attained  this 
position  by  placing  more  stress  upon  his  choice 
of  God  than  upon  God's  choice  of  him.'     His 

'  Evidence  that  Jesus '  consciousness  of  sonship  was  primarily 
a  spiritual  experience,  based  upon  his  own  choice  of  God  as 
Father,  may  still  be  seen  in  Luke's  account  of  the  baptism.  In 
Luke  3:21  both  the  baptism  of  the  people  and  that  of  Jesus  are 
mentioned  as  simple  events  (expressed  by  aorists)  falling  in  the 
same  general  period  of  past  time,  while  Jesus'  special  experience 
comes  to  him  during  a  season  of  prayer  following  his  baptism 
(see  Biblical  World,  XXXI  [1908],  300-302).  These  have  usually 
been  considered  secondary  traits  in  Luke,  but  the  opinion  is 
open  to  doubt.  The  non-Markan  source,  "Q,"  probably  men- 
tioned the  baptism  (so  Wellhausen,  Einl.,  p.  74  and  Harnack, 
Spriiche  und  Reden  Jesu,  pp.  136,  218  f.),  and  the  variant 
reading  in  Luke  3:22,  "Thou  art  my  son,  today  have  I 
begotten  thee,"  seems  originally  to  have  been  taken  from  "Q" 
by  the  Third  Evangelist  himself.  "Q"  also  may  have  supplied 
the  note  about  Jesus'  prayer.  This  source  remembered  that  he 
continued  to  address  the  "Father"  in  prayer  (Matt.  11:25 
Luke  10:21),  and  taught  his  followers  to  do  the  same  (Matt. 


ago  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

first  interest  was  not  to  claim  the  favors  due 
one  who  deemed  himself  to  be  God 's  son — even 
a  messianic  son — but  to  maintain  that  course 
of  life  which  one  should  pursue  who  had  made 
absolute  choice  of  God.  It  was  Jesus'  never 
ceasing  care  to  learn  and  to  do  the  divine  will, 
and  his  unfaltering  and  permanent  choice  of 
the  Father  is  the  basis  of  his  unique  conscious- 
ness of  sonship.  Not  only  did  he  thus  attain 
and  maintain  his  own  filial  relations  with  the 
divine,  but  he  advised  others  to  follow  a  similar 
course  in  order  to  become  sons  of  God. 

The  problem  of  Jesus'  messianic  self-con- 
sciousness is  too  complicated  for  extended 
treatment  here,  as  it  would  unduly  prolong 
discussion  and  might  divert  attention  from  the 
immediate  subject,  his  personal  religious  life. 
Whatever  his  thought  may  have  been  about  his 
official  significance,  it  does  not  seem  to  exert 
any  large  influence  upon  his  daily  experience; 

6:9  ff.;  5:44f.;  Luke  11:2-4;  6:28).  According  to  this  branch 
of  tradition,  which  being  Palestinian  in  origin  attached  less 
initial  significance  to  baptism,  at  the  very  beginning  of  Jesus' 
public  career  he  showed  the  same  devotional  attitude  that  char- 
acterized his  ministry  to  the  end.  After  his  baptism  he  sought 
with  renewed  determination  to  know  the  Father's  will,  and  in 
answer  to  his  cry  "[my]  Father,"  there  came  the  response  "[my] 
Son."  Thus  his  renewed  choice  of  God  as  Father  was  funda- 
mental to  his  new  sense  of  sonship,  and  the  relation  was  primarily 
ethical  and  spiritual  rather  than  external  and  official. 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     291 

and  this  fact  appears  even  in  those  narratives 
which  give  prominence  to  his  official  character 
on  special  occasions.  Thus  when  he  calls 
disciples  he  does  not  offer  them  the  glories  of  a 
messianic  kingdom  but  an  opportunity  to 
become  "fishers  of  men";  and  later  when  they 
question  about  relative  positions  in  the  kingdom 
he  sets  before  them  the  ideal  of  humble  service. 
In  his  controversy  with  opponents  it  is  not  by 
virtue  of  his  own  dignity  but  through  his  deeper 
spiritual  insight  that  he  justifies  his  contentions; 
as  when  he  refuses  to  be  bound  by  current 
notions  about  the  sabbath,  or  condemns  the 
"corban, "  on  humanitarian  grounds.  Again, 
in  the  conduct  of  personal  life  it  is  his  vital 
spiritual  fellowship  with  the  Father,  rather  than 
the  thought  of  official  authentication,  from 
which  he  draws  his  real  help.  When  weary  he 
retires  alone  for  prayer,  and  at  the  last  great 
crisis  while  in  the  garden  of  Gethsemane  he 
ultimately  finds  assurance  not  in  a  renewed 
conviction  of  his  messiahship  but  in  the  con- 
sciousness of  having  submitted  himself  unre- 
servedly to  the  Father's  will.  In  all  this  it  is 
his  sense  of  God 's  nearness  and  his  determina- 
tion to  choose  divine  guidance  which  stand 
out  most   distinctly.     The  fundamental   item 


292  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

in  all  Jesus'  religious  experience  appears  to  be 
his  abiding  consciousness  of  fellowship  with  the 
Father. 

One  of  the  first  problems  of  interj^retation 
to  engage  Jesus '  attention  must  have  been  that 
of  determining  the  character  of  his  mission. 
This  question  confronted  him  as  soon  as  he 
decided  to  take  up  public  work.  All  Israel 
was  looking  for  salvation  and  any  teacher  seek- 
ing a  public  hearing  must  be  prepared  to  pro- 
nounce upon  that  subject.  God  was  the 
ultimate  ground  of  all  hope,  but  various  ways 
were  being  advocated  as  the  best  means  of 
inducing  him  to  act  in  men's  behalf.  Some 
held  that  the  strict  observance  of  ordinances 
was  the  only  way  to  win  the  divine  favor,  but 
this  was  emphatically  rejected  by  Jesus  and 
among  its  advocates  he  found  his  severest 
opponents.  The  Zealots  proposed  another 
method.  They  would  resort  to  the  sword, 
trusting  that  God  would  interfere  in  their 
behalf;  but  Jesus  refused  to  sanction  political 
revolt  and  is  said  to  have  admitted  the  pro- 
priety of  paying  tribute  to  Caesar.  Still 
others  placed  chief  stress  upon  a  righteous 
life  as  a  means  of  securing  the  divine  favor. 
This  view  was  supported  by  much  that  the 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     293 

older  prophets  had  taught,  as  well  as  by  the 
writings  of  the  earlier  and  later  sages.  T>vo 
centuries  before  Jesus,  "the  son  (as  was  sup- 
posed) of  Joseph,"  began  his  work,  Jesus  the 
son  of  Sirach  had  said: 

Ye  that  fear  the  Lord,  put  your  trust  in  him, 
And  your  reward  shall  not  fail. 

The  eyes  of  the  Lord  are  upon  them  that  love  him. 
A  mighty  protection,  and  a  strong  stay. 

The  Most  High  hath  no  pleasure  in  the  offerings  of  the 

ungodly. 
Neither  is  he  pacified  for  sins  by  the  multitude  of 

sacrifices. 

To  depart  from  wickedness  is  a  thing  pleasing  to  the 

Lord; 
And  to  depart  from  unrighteousness  is  a  propitiation. 

Have  mercy  upon  us,  O  Lord  the  God  of  all,  and  behold; 
And  send  forth  thy  fear  upon  all  the  nations; 
Lift  up  thy  hand  against  the  strange  nations; 
And  let  them  see  thy  mighty  power.' 

About  a  century  later  a  similar  assurance  that 
God  will  ultimately  vindicate  the  righteous 
appears  in  the  Wisdom  of  Solomon : 

'Sir.  2:8;  34:16,  19;  35:3;  36:1-3- 


294  TJie  His  tor  icily  of  Jesus 

The  souls  of  the  righteous  are  in  the  hand  of  God, 
And  no  torment  shall  touch  them. 

For  even  if  in  the  sight  of  men  they  be  punished, 
Their  hope  is  full  of  immortality.' 

Again,  the  wicked,  speaking  of  the  righteous 
man,  says, 

He  professeth  to  have  knowledge  of  God, 
And  nameth  himself  servant  of  the  Lord. 

The  latter  end  of  the  righteous  he  calleth  happy; 

And  he  vaunteth  that  God  is  his  Father. 

Let  us  see  if  his  words  be  true, 

And  let  us  try  what  shall  befall  in  the  ending  of  his  life. 

For  if  the  righteous  man  is  God's  son,  he  will  uphold 

him, 
And  he  will   deliver   him   out   of   the   hand   of   his 

adversaries.^ 

To  some  extent  Jesus  shared  these  views. 
He  demanded  a  Hfe  of  righteousness  for  the 
individual,  he  did  not  identify  trial  and  suffer- 
ing with  defeat,  he  taught  that  God  freely 
forgave  the  sins  of  the  repentant,  that  he  sus- 
tained men  in  affliction,  that  he  cared  for  the 
lowly,  that  he  gave  assurance  of  immortality, 
that  he  revealed  himself  to  the  righteous,  that 
the  righteous  man  had  God  for  a  father  and 

'Wisdom  Sol.  3:1,4.  MVisdom  Sol.  2: 13,  ibh-iS. 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity    295 

was  God's  son.  But  in  one  important  respect 
Jesus  deviates  from  all  these  teachings:  he 
does  not  make  the  hope  of  favoritism  from  the 
divine  the  principal  aim  of  righteous  living. 
The  highest  privileges  of  sonship  are  not  to  be 
identified  with  temporal  blessings,  but  lie  in 
the  opportunity  to  live  the  Godlike  life  in  which 
love,  mercy,  and  self-giving  service  are  domi- 
nant to  the  end. 

When  Jesus  determined  that  the  preaching 
of  this  truth  was  to  be  his  chief  mission,  he 
went  quite  beyond  the  religious  outlook  of  his 
contemporaries.  Possibly  we  may  have  here 
the  key  to  his  interpretation  of  the  current  mes- 
sianic hope.  As  that  doctrine  was  popularly 
held,  it  rested  mainly  upon  the  idea  of  favor- 
itism. This  was  read  into  the  early  history,  as 
seen  in  Moses'  words  to  Pharaoh:  "Thus 
saith  Jehovah,  Israel  is  my  son,  my  first-born; 
and  I  have  said  unto  thee,  Let  my  son  go: 
behold  I  will  slay  thy  son,  thy  first-born." 
Here  is  God's  favoritism  for  his  chosen  people 
expressing  itself  in  vengeance  on  their  enemies. 
Even  in  Jesus'  day  this  was  the  essential  con- 
tent of  Jewish  messianic  thought,  but  it  was  so 
at  variance  with  Jesus'  fundamental  thought 
that   he  can  hardly  have  avoided   criticizing 


296  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

it  along  with  other  ideas  that  were  lacking  in 
ethical  efficiency.  Moreover,  the  prophets  had 
criticized  it  and  John  had  partially  condemned 
it  when  he  warned  the  Jews  not  to  trust  in 
Abrahamic  descent  for  future  safety. 

Jesus  went  still  farther  in  his  criticism.  Like 
John,  he  did  appeal  to  men  to  live  a  righteous 
life,  not  however  with  the  ultimate  motive  of 
winning  God's  favor  in  the  day  of  judgment 
but  in  order  to  attain  genuine  sonship  in  the 
present.  This  was  the  way  of  true  salvation, 
the  present  realization  of  the  messianic  hope, 
and  as  the  minister  of  this  truth  Jesus  may 
have  thought  his  work  to  be  "messianic."  On 
one  occasion  John  is  reported  to  have  sent 
messengers  asking  Jesus  if  he  is  this  final 
minister  of  salvation.  In  substance  he  replies 
affirmatively,  but  the  proof  of  his  claim  was  not 
to  be  looked  for  in  the  establishment  of  a 
miraculous  judgment  of  sifting  and  purging  as 
John  had  preached.  Rather  his  godlike  life 
of  service  for  mankind  was  his  testimonial. 
Of  course  he  does  not  deny  the  reality  of  divine 
favor,  and  in  fact  he  makes  it  displace  the 
narrower  conception  of  the  divine  favoritism: 
God's  blessings  abound  toward  all  men,  the 
wealth  of  his  love  is  unlimited,  he  desires  all 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity     297 

to  share  in  his  goodness  by  making  absolute 
choice  of  him. 

Jesus'  doctrine  of  salvation  is  determined 
by  this  thought  of  God's  activity  among  men. 
He  is  regnant  here  and  now.  The  nature  of  his 
rule  is  fatherly,  he  discards  all  narrow  favorit- 
ism, he  gives  himself  unreservedly  to  the  inter- 
ests of  humanity,  and  the  ideal  for  humanity 
is  the  realization,  on  its  part,  of  the  godlike 
life.  Jesus  prescribes  no  other  doctrinal  pro- 
gram for  the  attainment  of  salvation:  become 
sons  of  God  in  childlike,  trustful  fellowship, 
and  under  the  inspiration  of  this  fellowship  live 
the  life  of  unselfish  service.  It  is  the  urgent^ 
desire  of  God  that  all  men  should  enter  into 
the  full  realization  of  this  new  life,  he  is  ever 
encouraging  them  to  do  so,  and  Jesus'  work^ 
is  all  directed  toward  this  end.  But  it  is  for 
man  to  say  whether  or  not  he  will  enter  into 
this  new  relation.  There  is  no  barrier  between 
him  and  God  save  that  which  his  own  will  has 
erected. 

This  is  the  soteriology  of  Jesus,  and  its 
simplicity  has  almost  been  its  undoing.  It 
lacks  the  Pauline  dialectic,  it  is  free  from  the 
theological  intricacies  of  later  times,  it  attaches 
no  vital  importance  to  any  form  of  organiza- 


2g8  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

tion,  and  it  presupposes  no  theory  of  infallible 
mediators  whether  in  the  form  of  books  or 
persons.  It  centers  attention  on  two  things: 
on  the  one  hand  is  God,  immediate,  loving, 
inviting;  on  the  other  is  man  with  a  free  spirit 
holding  his  destiny  in  his  own  hand.  Will  he 
commit  his  way  unto  God,  and  walking  in 
harmony  with  the  divine  spirit  realize  the 
highest  ends  of  life  ?  Or  will  he  refuse,  living 
for  self  and  the  world,  and  so  suffer  the  unspeak- 
able calamity  of  shutting  God  out  of  his  life  ? 
But  how  shall  men  get  rid  of  the  debt  which 
past  sins  have  laid  upon  them?  Must  they 
not  by  some  means  placate  an  angry  God  whose 
mandates  have  been  disobeyed  and  whose 
dignity  has  been  insulted  by  rebellious  human- 
ity? Jesus  knew  no  such  angry  deity.  His 
father  would  gladly  receive  ever}'  penitent  who 
came;  forgiveness  for  the  past  was  procured 
by  the  very  desire  to  forsake  it  and  to  live  the 
new  life.  The  real  problem  was  not  how  to 
escape  the  anger  of  God,  but  how  to  break  the 
power  of  sin  which  hindered  the  attainment 
of  the  higher  life;  and  Jesus  has  a  remedy 
for  this  evil.  His  contemporaries  talked  of 
judgment  from  which  only  those  would  escape 
who  had  succeeded  in  getting  rid  of  sin  before 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity    299 

God  came,  while  Jesus  preached  that  God  is 
now  present  delivering  men  from  their  bondage. 
Personal  alliance  with  the  Father  is  the  secret 
of  escape  from  the  present  power  of  evil. 
Getting  rid  of  sin,  instead  of  being  a  prerequi- 
site to  the  divine  coming  is  an  integral  factor 
in  its  realization.  Man's  receptivity  for  the 
divine,  rather  than  his  perfect  attainment  of 
holiness,  conditions  the  coming  of  God,  and 
without  his  presence  in  life  the  hope  of  any 
worthy  attainment  is  meager.  Here  is  one  of 
the  most  distinctive  features  of  Jesus'  religious 
thinking:  God's  presence  means  salvation,) 
and  Jesus,  proclaiming  this  truth  in  his  own 
career,  is  the  minister  of  salvation. 

In  its  more  external  features,  the  theological 
thinking  of  Jesus  corresponded  in  general  to 
the  intellectual  ideas  of  that  age.  The  modern 
outlook  upon  the  world  and  its  history  was 
then  unknown,  consequently  it  is  vain  to  look 
for  this  in  his  teaching.  He  did  subject  vari- 
ous ideas  of  the  time  to  criticism  and  correction, 
yet  not  on  scientific,  but  on  religious  grounds. 
For  example,  men  then  talked  of  angels  and 
demons  in  a  realistic  way  and  so  did  Jesus, 
but  in  contrast  with  Jewish  transcendentalism, 
and  the  attendant  development  of  angelology, 


300  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

he  brought  God  back  from  remote  regions  and 
made  him  walk  again  with  men  in  true  spirit- 
ual communion.  This  was  no  denial  of  angels ' 
existence,  but  they  could  no  longer  be  thought 
to  serve  any  important  religious  function.  Also 
belief  in  evil  spirits  was  not  denied,  but  their 
power  was  practically  abolished  by  faith  in  the 
nearness  and  supremacy  of  God.  Similarly 
other  phases  of  Jesus'  teaching  employed  cur- 
rent thought  and  terminology,  but  their  essen- 
tial content  was  determined  by  the  new  vitality 
of  his  personal  religion.  His  whole  theological 
method  was  controlled  by  his  own  deep  reli- 
gious experience. 

Jesus'  religion  had  also  important  ethical 
and  social  aspects.  The  conditions  of  society 
and  the  point  of  view  of  that  age  differed  so 
much  from  those  of  modern  times  that  the  real 
import  of  his  teaching  has  not  always  been 
grasped.  We  cannot  assume  that  he  had  defi- 
nitely in  mind  all  the  problems  of  modern 
society,  nor  is  it  fair  to  give  his  words  and 
deeds  the  interpretation  which  modern  con- 
ditions might  place  upon  them.  Perhaps  he 
would  have  taught  and  acted  otherwise  had  he 
been  placed  in  these  modern  surroundings. 
So  far  as  his  specific  words  are  concerned,  they 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity    301 

should  always  be  interpreted  in  the  first-  and 
not  in  a  twentieth-century  setting;  while  for 
the  purposes  of  modern  application  one  must 
seek  the  general  principles  underlying  his 
specific  teaching.  These  are  always  fairly 
evident. 

Jesus  lays  down  two  controlling  principles 
for  the  guidance  of  conduct;  God  is  to  be 
loved  with  full  devotion  of  heart,  soul,  and 
mind,  and  one's  neighbor  is  to  be  loved  as 
oneself.  Each  principle  carries  with  it  many 
practical  implications.  The  first  means  nothing 
less  than  a  determination  to  make  God's 
conduct  an  absolute  standard  for  life,  the  rule 
of  the  divine  is  the  ideal  of  human  action,  sons 
are  to  live  as  the  Father  lives  and  to  be  perfect 
as  he  is  perfect.  Therefore  genuine  sincerity 
of  motive  must  characterize  all  life;  so  men  are 
exhorted  to  maintain  secrecy  in  almsgiving  in 
order  to  guard  against  pride  and  hypocrisy,  to 
preserve  the  genuineness  of  their  devotions  by 
praying  to  be  heard  of  God  and  not  of  men,  and, 
if  they  choose  to  fast,  to  make  it  a  season  of 
secret  personal  discipline.  In  the  life  of  the 
true  son  no  place  is  to  be  allowed  that  type  of 
selfishness  which  seeks  such  credit  from  men 
as  a  disfigured  countenance,  a  wordy  prayer, 


302  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

or  a  public  demonstration  of  generosity  might 
prompt.  Jesus  seeks  to  inspire  all  the  motives 
of  life  with  these  fundamentally  unselfish 
qualities. 

The  character  of  all  action  is  determined 
by  the  ideal  relationship  between  the  Father 
and  his  sons.  They  will  put  his  cause  first, 
seeking  his  kingdom  and  his  righteousness  at 
the  cost  of  all  lower  ideals;  they  will  be  opti- 
mistic yet  trustfully  submissive  to  the  divine 
will,  and  they  will  live  the  same  sort  of  self- 
giving  life  as  does  he.  If  he  loves  all  men  so 
must  they;  if  he  abhors  favoritism  they  must 
do  likewise;  if  his  interest  is  to  seek  and  save 
the  lost  this  must  also  be  theirs;  if  self-seeking 
is  eliminated  from  his  attitude  they  must 
strive  to  abandon  all  selfish  thoughts;  if  it  is 
characteristic  of  him  to  forgive  and  forbear 
they  must  practice  forgiveness  and  forbearance, 
in  short  their  entire  conduct  toward  their 
fellows  will  be  modeled  after  the  perfect  stand- 
ard set  by  the  Father.  These  were  the  con- 
trolling principles  in  Jesus'  own  life.  He  cast 
in  his  lot  with  the  poor  and  lowly,  he  despised 
not  the  needs  of  publicans  and  sinners,  he  freely 
gave  himself  for  the  sake  of  others,  and  when 
he  was  smitten  he  smote  not  in  return  but 


Jesus  the  Historical  Founder  of  Christianity    303 

forbore  and  forgave  because  he  believed  this 
also  to  be  the  Father 's  will. 

Such,  in  outline,  is  the  personal  religion  of  ' 
Jesus.  His  serene  faith  withstood  the  storms 
that  beat  against  it  because  it  was  founded 
upon  the  consciousness  of  vital  communion 
with  God.  His  whole  theological  thinking 
was  dominated  by  this  personal  experience  of 
a  divine  father  whose  presence  in  the  world 
meant  a  full  salvation  and  whose  contact  with 
men  inspired  them  to  live  the  life  of  self- 
giving  service.  This  was  the  Jesus  whose 
personality,  whose  teaching,  whose  activity, 
made  Christianity  possible. 


CHAPTER  X 

JESUS'  SIGNIFICANCE  FOR  MODERN 
RELIGION 

Jesus'  career  upon  earth  closed  nearly  nine- 
teen hundred  years  ago.  Subsequently  the 
disciples  who  had  personally  associated  with 
him  carried  on,  for  a  few  years,  a  propaganda 
in  his  name.  Then  another  generation  took 
up  the  movement,  which  had  already  begun  to 
spread  beyond  the  narrow  confines  of  its 
original  home  in  Palestine,  and  ultimately 
"Christianity"  became  the  recognized  religion 
of  the  western  world.  In  this  course  of  develop- 
ment many  strong  leaders  championed  its 
cause,  new  forces  from  time  to  time  entered  into 
the  making  of  the  new  faith,  and  the  ordinary 
transformations  incident  to  a  healthful  and 
normal  growth  were  duly  manifest.  After 
nearly  nineteen  centuries  of  this  history  we 
\/  turn  back  to  the  shadijw'y  form  of  Christianity's 
traditional  founder  and  ask  what  significance 
he  has  for  religion  today.  Remembering  the 
long  lapse  of  time,  the  comparative  incomplete- 
ness of  our  knowledge  of  Jesus'  earthly  career, 
and  the  changed  conditions  of  the  modern  age, 
304 


JcsHS^  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     305 

it  is  not  surprising  that  some  persons  should 
feel  our  question  to  be  an  idle  one. 

Furthermore,  in  the  course  of  Christian 
thinking  as  a  whole,  reflection  about  Jesus  has 
usually  taken  its  departure  from  some  prevailing 
type  of  speculation  rather  than  from  historical 
data.  To  begin  with,  the  peculiar  world-view 
of  the  primitive  believers,  who  thought  in  terms 
of  Jewish  messianism  and  who  looked  for  the 
end  of  the  world  in  the  near  future,  was 
employed  for  this  purpose.  But  for  Greek 
Christians  neither  of  these  ideas  seemed 
supremely  valuable.  The  latter  was  soon 
denied  by  history,  and  the  former  was  too 
particularistic  to  be  retained  in  its  original 
form.  Jesus'  chief  significance  was  now  sought 
in  the  realm  of  metaphysical  speculation, 
which,  though  varying  somewhat  in  form  at 
different  times,  has  been  the  usual  method  of 
indicating  his  superior  worth.  In  all  this  the 
historical  Jesus  was  almost  wholly  ignored. 
Not  that  there  was  any  conscious  deviation 
from  the  traditional  records  of  his  career,  but 
interpreters  easily  discovered  there  the  par- 
ticular type  of  person  needed  as  the  counterpart 
of  their  christological  speculations.  Hence  the 
picture  of  Jesus  which  has  been  chiefly  before 


3o6  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

the  minds  of  believers  from  time  to  time  has 
been  a  product  of  interpretation  rather  than  a 
plain  portrait  of  the  individual  who  lived  in 
Syria  centuries  ago. 

This  result  was  quite  unavoidable.  If  Jesus 
was  to  have  supreme  value  for  successive 
generations  of  Christians  he  had  to  be  reinter- 
preted in  terms  of  the  ideas  which  came  to  hold 
first  place  in  each  new  age.  It  was  impossible 
for  believers  of  the  second  century  to  maintain, 
with  those  of  the  first  generation,  that  Jesus' 
worth  could  be  adequately  measured  by  the 
expectation  of  his  return  upon  the  clouds  during 
the  lifetime  of  some  who  had  been  personally 
associated  with  him  while  on  earth.  Each  new 
phase  in  the  history  of  Christian  thinking  has 
been  confronted  by  a  similar  problem  with 
respect  to  the  Christology  of  the  past.  Should 
Jesus  be  newly  evaluated  in  terms  of  the  newer 
thought?  At  the  outset  perhaps  only  a  few 
theologians  answered  this  question  affirma- 
tively, but  ultimately  their  opinions  prevailed 
just  in  proportion  as  the  new  intellectual  out- 
look gained  currency.  If  interpreters  had  left 
Jesus  inextricably  bound  up  with  past  modes 
of  thinking  then  they  must  have  abandoned 
him  outright,  or  have  allowed  the  needs  of  their 


Jestis  *  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     307 

age  to  pass  unheeded.  If  he  was  to  be  saved 
for  developing  Christianity  it  was  necessary 
that  he  be  reinterpreted. 

It  is  perfectly  natural,  therefore,  that  moderns 
should  ask  how  they  are  to  estimate  Jesus' 
significance.  An  evaluation  of  him  in  terms  of 
modern  thought  would  seem  to  be  inevitable. 
Many  persons  may  be  satisfied  with  some  form 
of  traditional  Christology,  but  there  are  others 
who  feel  compelled  to  adopt,  in  their  treatment 
of  religious  problems,  the  methods  of  critical 
inquiry  which  they  recognize  to  be  valid  in 
other  fields  of  study  and  a  world-view  which 
harmonizes  with  the  data  of  modern  knowledge. 
If  Jesus  is  to  have  any  vital  significance  for 
their  religion,  interpretation  of  him  must  be 
phrased  in  the  language  of  present-day  thinking. 

The  motive  of  this  effort  to  understand  Jesus 
anew  should  not  be  misunderstood.  An  expres- 
sion of  doubt  regarding  the  validity  of  former 
views  is  sometimes  looked  upon  as  an  attempt 
to  disparage  Jesus.  On  the  contrary,  its  real 
aim  is  to  obtain  a  more  adequate  means  of 
appreciating  his  worth.  One  may  question 
whether  the  first  interpreters'  speculations 
about  him  can  lay  any  stronger  claim  to 
finality    than   can    their   cosmology,    but    the 


J 


08  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 


world  has  not  lost  its  meaning  because  it  has 
been  newly  interpreted — in  fact  it  has  taken 
on  a  much  larger  meaning.  If  it  is  assumed 
that  Jesus'  chief  significance  lies  in  the  specula- 
tive garments  in  which  his  earlier  followers 
draped  him,  then  there  is  danger  that  he  lose 
prestige;  but  if  he  is  discovered  to  have 
essential  worth  quite  apart  from  their  theology, 
the  attempt  to  estimate  his  significance  from 
the  standpoint  of  modern  thinking  is  scarcely 
to  be  feared. 

Yet  the  modern  situation  raises  a  more 
fundamental  issue  than  that  formerly  presented 
at  critical  periods  in  the  history  of  christological 
development.  Heretofore  interpreters  have 
quite  uniformly  centered  attention  upon  the 
so-called  Christ  of  faith.  It  has  been  the 
Christ-idea,  the  idea  of  a  Savior- God  perhaps 
we  may  say,  that  has  held  first  place  in  Chris- 
tian thinking.  How  slight,  for  example,  was 
Paul's  interest  in  the  earthly  Jesus  apart  from 
the  saving  significance  which  Paul  attached  to 
Jesus'  death!  Similarly,  subsequent  inter- 
preters made  it  their  chief  task  to  expound 
Jesus'  worth  as  the  mediator  of  a  God-assured 
salvation  for  mankind,  the  form  of  the  dogma 
varying  to  suit  current  ideas  about  the  world 


Jesus '  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     309 

and  man  in  relation  to  the  deity.  In  all  this 
it  is  the  divine,  heavenly  Christ  rather  than  the 
human,  historical  Jesus  which  stands  in  the  fore- 
ground of  interpretation.  On  the  other  hand 
there  is  now  a  strong  demand  that  christologi- 
cal  speculation  definitely  relate  itself  to  the 
actual  Jesus  of  history,  and  the  serious  question 
is  whether  this  can  be  done  without  detriment 
to  our  estimate  of  Jesus'  worth  for  religion. 

Three  ways  of  meeting  this  problem  have 
been  proposed,  (i)  Some  interpreters  assert 
that  the  main  content  of  traditional  Christology 
finds  historical  substantiation  in  Jesus'  earthly 
career.  (2)  Others  do  not  think  the  history 
supports  the  traditional  views,  and  accordingly 
they  would  construct  a  new  Christology  from 
the  material  brought  to  light  by  their  critical 
study  of  Jesus'  life  and  teaching.  (3)  Yet 
others  find  the  connection  between  his  historical 
personality  and  the  religion  of  men  today  so 
unimportant  that  they  eschew  all  christological 
speculation  and  treat  him  as  merely  one  of  the 
phenomena — more  or  less  significant — in  the 
history  of  our  religion.  These  three  main  types 
of  opinion  need  to  be  examined  more  closely  in 
order  to  bring  out  the  distinctive  issues  of  our 
present  problem. 


3IO  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Those  who  hold  the  first  of  these  opinions 
would  make  the  worship  of  the  heavenly- 
Christ  the  distinguishing  mark  of  modern 
as  well  as  of  primitive  Christianity.  Hence 
the  Jesus  of  history  is  not  to  be  differen- 
tiated from  the  Christ  of  faith,  since  it  was  in 
the  latter  capacity  that  Jesus  actually  presented 
himself  to  men,  even  during  his  earthly  career. 
That  is,  he  claimed  to  be  an  anthropomorphized 
deity,  and  was  so  recognized  by  his  believing 
followers.'  To  this  fundamental  tenet  of  tra- 
ditional Christology  "liberals"  raise  two  general 
objections.  They  maintain  that  (i)  critical 
inquiry  upon  the  life  and  teaching  of  Jesus 
does  not  allow  this  reading  of  the  history,  and 
(2)  a  modern  world-\dew  cannot  adopt  this 
type  of  metaphysical  speculation. 

'Cf.,  among  the  more  recent  discussions,  Garvie,  Studies  in 
the  Inner  Life  of  Jesus  (New  York,  1907);  Griitzmacher,  1st  das 
liberale  J esushild  modern?  (Gr.  Lichterfelde,  1907);  Nolloth,  r/re 
Person  of  Our  Lord  and  Recent  Thought  (London,  1908);  Denney, 
Jesus  and  the  Gospel  (New  York,  1909) ;  Jordan,  Jesus  im  Kampfe 
der  Partcien  dcr  Gcgcnwart  (Stuttgart,  1907),  and  Jesus  und  die 
modcrnen  Jcsusbildcr  (Gr.  Lichterfelde,  1909);  Forsyth,  The  Per- 
son and  Place  of  Jesus  Christ  (Boston,  1909);  Dunkmann,  Der 
historische  Jesus,  dcr  mythologische  Christus  und  Jesus  der  Christ 
(Leipzig,  1910);  Warfield,  The  Lord  of  Glory  (New  York,  1907), 
and  "The  Two  'Natures'  and  Recent  Christological  Specula- 
tion" in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology,  XV  (1911),  337-61, 
546-68;  also  several  contributors  to  the  Hibbert  Journal  Sup- 
plement, "Jesus  or  Christ?"  (London,  1909). 


Jesus '  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     311 

It  is  unnecessary  here  to  re-examine  in  detail 
the  content  of  primitive  interpretation.'  The 
results  of  historical  criticism  are  now  well 
known,  and  for  those  who  accept  these  results 
it  is  evident  that  the  Christ  of  faith  was  thought 
of  at  first  as  an  individual  soon  to  come  in  glory. 
Jesus  upon  earth  may  have  inspired  messianic 
hopes  in  some  of  his  immediate  associates,  but 
these  hopes  were  not  identical  with  those  which 
followed  the  resurrection  faith,  and  which 
resulted  in  giving  the  risen  Christ  a  position  in 
the  reverence  and  worship  of  his  followers 
nearly  identical  with  that  of  God.  Only  by 
degrees  did  interpreters  come  to  find  qualities 
in  the  earthly  Jesus  which  enabled  them  to 
portray  his  life  in  terms  of  their  thinking  about 
the  heavenly  Christ.  This  was  accomplished 
by  explaining  away  such  seemingly  contra- 
dictory features  as  his  death,  and  by  making 
the  blindness  of  the  disciples  responsible  for 
their  generally  admitted  failure  to  perceive  in 
him,  while  with  them  on  earth,  the  character- 
istics which  they  later  ascribed  to  the  heavenly 

'Sec  above,  chap. v.  Cf.  also  J.  Weiss,  Jesus  im  Glauben  des 
Urcltristatliims  (Tubingen,  1909)  and  Chrislus:  Die  Anfdnge  des 
Dogmas  (Tubingen,  1909);  Granbery,  Outline  of  New  Testament 
Christology  (Chicago,  1909);  Bacon,  Jesus  the  Son  of  Cod  (New 
Haven,  191 1). 


312  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

Christ.  Thus  thought  passed  from  the  Messiah 
to  come,  and  centered  itself  upon  the  Messiah 
who  had  come. 

Then  arose  the  question  how  he  had  become 
such.  While  the  future  was  looked  to  for  the 
manifestation — or  for  the  chief  manifestation — 
of  his  messiahship,  the  question  of  "how"  was 
answered  in  the  language  of  apocal\q:)ticism,  but 
as  emphasis  upon  the  messianic  quality  of  his 
earthly  career  grew  stronger  new  answers  had  to 
be  found.  These  needs  are  met  by  recalling  his 
spiritual  endowment  at  baptism,  his  virgin  birth, 
and  the  incarnation  of  the  logos  in  him.  At 
first  faith  was  directed  toward  an  angelic  figure 
whose  uniqueness  was  yet  to  be  revealed;  then 
thought  was  fixed  more  firmly  upon  an  earthly 
individual  especially  endowed  with  divine  favor, 
and  from  this  it  went  on  to  regard  Jesus  as 
actual  deity  anthropomorphically  manifest.  If 
we  consider  historical  criticism  alone,  it  does  not 
follow  that  this  last  stage  of  interpretation  may 
not  be  the  most  accurate  and  valuable  explana- 
tion of  the  significance  of  Jesus'  personality; 
but  to  carry  this  back  into  Jesus'  own  teaching 
and  to  make  it  the  most  primitive  and  the  only 
type  of  early  Christian  thinking  is  what  causes 
offense  in  the  eyes  of  "liberal"  historical  critics. 


Jesus'  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     313 

The  second  main  objection  urged  against  the 
traditional  Christology  is  the  extent  and 
character  of  its  emphasis  upon  the  supernatural. 
Many  now  feel  that  this  way  of  picturing  God's 
relation  to  human  life  and  history  is  too 
mechanical  to  give  a  religiously  adequate 
estimate  of  Jesus.  According  to  the  newer 
world- view,  unprecedented  and  seemingly  extra- 
ordinary events  in  history  need  not  be  assigned 
to  other-world  causes  in  order  to  give  them 
significance.  This  world  is  now  far  richer  in 
reality  than  it  was  for  the  ancients.  Then  it 
was  barren  and  narrow  and  could  be  enriched 
only  from  without,  while  for  moderns  the 
enrichment  has  come  increasingly  from  within. 
In  proportion  as  the  conquest  of  the  normal  has 
enlarged,  confidence  in  it  has  increased,  and  the 
need  for  the  abnormal  has  gradually  grown  less. 
This  is  no  impoverishment  of  the  spiritual 
possibilities  of  the  universe,  but  it  does  mean 
the  elimination  of  externalism,  freakishness, 
and  arbitrary  intervention  in  the  normal  world- 
order.  So  it  follows  that  in  interpreting  Jesus 
the  category  of  supernaturalism  is  felt  by  many 
to  be  an  inadequate  way  of  picturing  his  worth, 
and  this  is  not  because  he  has  lost  significance 
but  because  the  category  has  done  so.     This 


314  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

situation  is  seen  more  definitely,  for  example, 
in  the  use  which  has  been  made  of  certain  terms 
to  indicate  the  idea  of  his  deity,  terms  which  no 
longer  fitly  answer  to  the  conception  of  deity 
even  when  they  are  used  of  God  himself.  To 
be  sure,  it  was  inevitable  that  primitive  thought 
upon  this  subject  should  move  in  the  realm  of 
physical  relations,  employing  such  ideas  as 
defiance  of  the  course  of  Nature,  unlimited 
exercise  of  the  powers  of  sense,  and  the  like; 
but  today  it  is  believed  that  more  compre- 
hensive and  spiritual  terms  are  needed  to 
express  the  idea  of  God  and  his  relation  to  men. 
Accordingly  a  more  liberal  type  of  interpre- 
tation proposes  a  different  way  of  ascertaining 
Jesus'  significance  for  modern  times.  In  con- 
trast with  the  foregoing  procedure,  it  would  use 
a  minimum  of  metaphysical  theory  and  a 
maximum  of  history  in  its  evaluation  of  Jesus. 
To  some  extent  this  is  a  concession  to  the 
reaction  against  supernaturalism  begun  by  the 
rationalists  a  century  or  more  ago,  but  the 
rationalists  are  not  always  followed  all  the  way. 
The  crasser  forms  of  belief  in  the  supernatural 
are  eliminated,  but  in  treating  Jesus  he  is  com- 
monly felt  to  be  historically  so  unusual,  and  to 
answer  so  ideally  the  spiritual  cravings  of  the 


Jesus'  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     315 

soul,  as  to  be  a  unique  agency  for  bringing  God 
and  man  together. 

The  antecedents  of  this  mode  of  interpreta- 
tion may  be  traced  back  even  to  Herder,  whose 
reason  would  have  led  him  to  ally  himself  with 
the  rationalists  but  whose  poetic  sensitiveness 
of  spirit  enabled  him  to  find  religious  worth  in 
miracle  narratives.  Schleiermacher's  contribu- 
tion in  this  direction  was  more  significant.  He 
too  did  not  give  first  place  to  miracles,  but  he 
(^  emphasized  the  immediacy  of  religious  feeling 
and  so  found  God  revealed  in  the  personal  life 
of  Jesus,  particularly  as  described  in  the 
Fourth  Gospel. y  Similarly  Ritschl  saw  a  revela- 
tion of  the  cosmic  purpose  in  the  historical 
Jesus,  who,  being  the  unique  embodiment  of 
the  religious  ideal  which  faith  craves,  has  the 
value  of  God  for  us.  Thus  he  is  the  supreme 
revelation  of  God  in  history. 

The  more  recent  exponents  of  this  general 
method  still  further  reduce  the  amount  of 
supernaturalism  allowed.  Relatively  minor 
stress  is  placed  upon  specific  deeds  and  words 
of  Jesus,  while  emphasis  rests  mainly  upon  his 

'  We  should  remember  that  Schleiermacher  came  before  the 
days  of  scientific  literary  criticism  of  the  gospels,  and  he  found 
the  absence  from  John  of  the  more  abundant  miracle  display  of 
the  Synoptics  rather  gratifying. 


3i6  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

historical  personality.  His  consciousness  of  a 
peculiar  relation  to  God,  the  unique  vitality  of 
his  own  religion,  the  height  of  his  religious 
ideals,  and  the  like,  are  made  the  chief  basis  for 
an  estimate  of  his  significance.  Accordingly^ 
the  essence  of  Christianity  does  not  consist  in 
holding  any  given  set  of  beliefs  about  Jesus,  « 
but  in  the  reproduction  of  his  type  of  life. 

But  in  order  to  measure  more  exactly 
Jesus'  significance  for  modern  thinking,  how 
do  the  "liberals"  define  his  uniqueness? 
The  traditional  explanation,  which  modern 
liberalism  rejects,  is  very  simple  and — granting 
its  premises — very  satisfactory :  Jesus  is  unique 
in  that  he  comes  into  the  world  from  ^^^thout. 
He  is  not  a  product  of  the  present  world-order; 
he  is  rather  a  new  contribution  to  its  life. 
Liberal  interpretation  of  the  more  usual  type 
prefers  a  less  strongly  dualistic  world-view, 
but  it  does  not  always  content  itself  with 
defining  Jesus'  uniqueness  in  a  strictly  natural- 
istic manner.  He  is  held  to  be  a  normal 
product  of  evolutionary  laws  and  is  purely 
human,  yet  in  some  vague  and  undefined  or 
indefinable  way  he  stands  apart — a  gleam  of 
light  out  of  the  eternal  world.  So  War- 
schauer,^  who  in  general  does  not  appeal  to  the 

'Jesus:  Seven  Questions  (London,  1908). 


Jesus '  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     317 

supernatural  for  evidence  of  Jesus'  worth, 
speaks  of  Jesus  as  the  one  "sent  in  the  fulness 
of  time,"  the  "crowning  instance"  of  the  divine 
immanence.  Harnack  puts  stress  upon  the 
idea  that  God  is  truly  manifest  only  in  personal 
life,  and  that  Jesus  reveals  his  uniqueness  both 
in  his  own  unparalleled  God-consciousness  and 
in  his  ability  to  awaken  in  believers  an  assur- 
ance of  divine  sonship/  Similarly  Wernle 
recognizes  a  supernatural  self-consciousness  in 
Jesus  which  differentiates  him  from  the  rest  of 
humanity;*  and  Schmiedel  notes  that  Jesus 
"had  something  to  offer  which  appeals  to  every 
human  heart  in  the  universe  and  is  to  that 

'Cf.  Christianity  and  History  (London,  1896,  pp.  36  f.),  Das 
Wesen  des  Christentums  (Leipzig,  1900,  pp.  81  f.;  English  tr., 
What  Is  Christianity?  New  York,  1 901,  pp.  127  ff.).  The  Twofold 
Gospel  in  the  New  Testament  (Berlin-Schoneberg,  191 1,  pp.  10  f.; 
translated  from  the  report  of  the  Fiinfter  WeUkongress  fUr  freies 
Chrislentum  und  religiosen  Fortschritt,  Berlin,  1910,  pp.  151  ff.). 

^Die  Anjdnge  unserer  Religion  (Tiibingen,  1904',  p.  28) :  "Das 
Wunderbare  bei  Jesus  ist  das  Zusammensein  des  iibermensch- 
lichen  Selbstbewusstseins  mit  der  tief sten  Demut  vor  Gott.  Der- 
selbe  Mensch,  der  ruft:  Alles  ist  mir  vom  Vater  iibergeben 
worden,  und  niemand  kennt  den  Vater  als  der  Sohn,  antwortet 
dem  Reichen:  Was  nennst  du  mich  gut?  Niemand  ist  gut,  als 
der  Eine  Gott.  Ohne  das  Erste  ein  Mensch,  wie  wir,  ohne  das 
Zweite  ein  Schwarmer.  Jesus  selbst  hat  sich  als  IMittler  empfun- 
den.  Der  Mittler  ist  durchaus  Mensch,  ohne  Abzug,  aber  er 
hat  von  Gott  einen  besonderen  Beruf  und  Auftrag  an  die 
Menschen  bekommen,  und  dadurch  iiberragt  er  sie. "  Cf.  Eng- 
lish tr.,  Beginnings  of  Christianity  (New  York,  1904,  I,  40). 


3i8  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

extent  eternally  true.  Above  all  he  possessed 
a  religious  nature  of  such  strength  and  purity 
as  have  never  to  our  knowledge  been  combined 
in  any  other  person."^  Bousset  hints  at  a 
distinction  between  "transient"  and  "eternal" 
in  the  personality  of  Jesus,  who  is  the  symbol 
of  the  divine  idea  and  the  supreme  example  of 
a  God-directed  human  life.^  Thus  Jesus, 
according  to  this  school  of  interpretation,  has 
significance  in  two  directions:  (i)  Most  con- 
spicuously is  he  a  model  human  being,  a 
uniquely  successful  seeker  after  God,  and  so  an 
abiding  example  and  inspiration  to  his  fellow- 

'  Jesus  in  Modern  Criticism  (London,  1907,  pp.  88  f.). 

*  The  Significance  of  the  Person  of  Jesus  for  Belief  (Berlin- 
Schoneberg,  191 1;  translated  from  the  report  of  the  FUnfter 
Weltkongress  fiir  freics  Christentmn  und  religiosen  Fortschritt,  pp. 
291-305).  Cf.  Troeltsch,  Die  Bedenlung  der  Geschichllichkeit  Jesu 
fiir  den  Glaubcn  (Tubingen,  191 1,  p.  50):  '"Gott  in  Christo' 
kann  fiir  uns  nur  heissen,  dass  wir  in  Jesus  die  hochste 
uns  zugangliche  Gottesoffenbarung  verehren  und  dass  wir  das 
Bild  Jesu  zum  Sammelpunkt  aller  in  unserem  Lebenskreise 
sich  findenden  Selbstbezeugungen  Gottes  machen. "  Weinel 
says:  "Aber  wer  in  ihm  das  Ideal  auch  seines  Lebens  erfasst, 
der  erlebt  an  ihm  auch  Gott"  {1st  das  "liberale"  Jesusbild  wider- 
legt?,  p.  84).  Whether  Bousset  is  to  be  reckoned  among  the 
representatives  of  this  second  type  of  interpretation  seems  to 
some  of  his  readers  doubtful.  They  would  assign  him  to  the 
third  group.  Thus  Wobbermin  (Geschichle  und  Historic  in  der 
Religionswissenschaft,  Tubingen,  191 1, pp.  47-72)  thinks  Bousset's 
treatment  of  Jesus  as  the  "symbol"  of  the  divine  no  longer 
allows  him  any  significance  as  a  source  of  our  religion. 


Jesus  ^  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     319 

men  who  are  engaged  in  a  similar  search.  (2) 
He  is  yet  more.  Though  not  himself  God,  yet 
as  an  illustration  of  God's  self-revelation  in  a 
human  personality  he  transcends  all  others  who 
have  gone  before  or  who  have  come  after  him. 
Thus  he  virtually  becomes  a  bearer  of  something 
from  God  to  man  in  the  mystical  realm  of  spirit- 
ual life.  His  chief  significance  lies  in  helping 
humanity  God-ward,  but  in  some  less  distinct 
yet  real  manner  he  brings  God  man- ward. 

Advocates  of  the  third  main  attitude  men- 
tioned above  take  exception  to  the  foregoing 
interpretation.  They  object  to  the  retention 
of  the  smallest  remnant  of  philosophical  dualism 
in  one's  thought  about  Jesus,  however  skilfully 
such  dualism  may  be  veneered  by  admiration 
for  Jesus  on  grounds  alleged  to  be  strictly 
historical.  They  refuse  to  entertain  any  world- 
view  which  is  not  absolutely  monistic.  God 
and  the  world  are  one  in  the  most  rigid  sense, 
and  his  activity  is  not  to  be  differentiated  at 
any  point  from  the  totality  of  the  cosmic  flux. 
There  are,  to  be  sure,  variations  in  matters  of 
detail  among  exponents  of  this  monistic  faith. 
Some  put  stress  upon  mysticism,  and  so  find 
the  fundamental  unity  by  absorption  into  an 
emotionless  Nirvana — a  view  which  Schopen- 


320  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

hauer  and  Richard  Wagner,  for  example, 
employed  in  thinking  of  Jesus.  A  kindred  line 
of  thought  emphasizes  the  identification  of  God 
with  the  universe,  as  illustrated  more  recently 
in  the  pantheistic  inteipretation  of  Christianity 
by  E.  von  Hartmann^  and  A.  Drews.^  Perhaps 
their  metaphysical  theory  might  be  termed  a 
monism  of  divine  will,  the  ^\dll  of  God  being 
identified  with  the  world-process.  Others  sub- 
ordinate the  thought  of  God  to  that  of  matter, 
thus  producing  a  distinctly  materialistic  mon- 
ism like  that  of  Haeckel,  according  to  which 
Christianity  and  Jesus  are  purely  naturalistic 
cultural  products  and  have  no  further  sig- 
nificance. Others  advocate  an  idealistic  mon- 
ism in  which  mind  is  the  unifying  concept- — ^an 
inheritance  from  Kant  and  Hegel  with  the  last 
vestiges  of  dualism  eliminated.  Here  the  final 
test  of  all  religious  values  is  determined  by  the 
dictates  of  reason. 

It  follows  that  emphasis  upon  the  supreme 

^  Die  Krisis  dcs  Christcntums  (Leipzig,  1888),  Das  Christeutum 
des  neuen  Testaments  (Sachsa,  1905),  et  al.  Cf.  also  von  Schne- 
hen,  Der  modcrne  Jcsuskultiis  (Frankfurt,  1906);  Anderson,  "The 
Collapse  of  Liberal  Christianity"  in  the  Hibhert  Journal,  \TII 
(1910),  301-20,  and  "Whitherward? — a  Question  for  the  Higher 
Criticism,"  ibid.,  IX  (191 1),  345-64. 

^  Die  Religion  als  Selbst-Beu'iisstscin  Gottcs,  Die  Chrislusmythe, 
el  al. 


Jesiis^  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     321 

value  of  history  for  religious  thinking  does  not 
appeal  to  the  monist.  For  him  the  essential  in 
Christianity  is  not  belief  in  a  sensuous  yet 
supernatural  revelation  of  God  in  Jesus  Christ, 
nor  is  it  a  reproduction  of  the  religion  of  Jesus. 
It  is  rather  the  embodiment  of  ideas  and  ideals 
resulting  from  the  modern  man's  reaction  upon 
the  whole  realm  of  reality — past  and  present — 
available  for  him.  The  personal  religion  of 
Jesus,  the  religion  of  his  disciples,  religious  life  in 
all  ages,  even  among  adherents  of  non-Christian 
faiths,  are  valuable  for  modern  reflection,  but, 
according  to  this  view,  Christianity  at  heart  is  a 
matter  of  spiritual  immediacy  in  each  new  age 
and  is  fundamentally  neither  a  historically  nor  a 
miraculously  mediated  product.  It  is  primarily 
an  attainment,  not  an  inheritance.  The  present 
indeed  has  a  rich  inheritance  from  the  past,  par- 
ticularly in  Christian  history,  but  present-day 
Christianity,  on  this  understanding  of  its  charac- 
ter, is  the  total  embodiment  of  the  actual  religi- 
ous attainments  of  modern  men  in  a  modern 
environment.' 

'  This  point  has  recently  received  new  emphasis  in  the  Jatho- 
Harnack  controversy.  For  example,  Wernle  asks  whether  Prot- 
estantism is  essentially  a  definite  historical  quantity,  or  whether  it 
is  something  which  every  man  may  formulate  to  his  own  liking. 
Wernle  adheres  to  the  former  notion  and  finds  his  historical  Grosse 


322  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

This  idea,  that  religion  to  be  vital  must  be 
cut  loose  from  historical  moorings,  is  not 
altogether  ''modern."  It  arose  with  the  con- 
ception that  ideas  rather  than  events  are  the 
most  significant  items  in  religion,  and  reason 
rather  than  history  is  the  proper  tribunal  for 
judging  the  validity  of  religious  truth.'  The 
application  of  these  principles  to  modern 
liberalism  results  in  its  condemnation  on  the 
ground  of  its  "sickly"  metaphysics.  Its  claim 
that  a  historical  phenomenon  can  be  set  up  as 
an  ideal  of  absolute  worth  is  held  to  be  a  con- 
tradiction in  terms.  For  if  the  ideal  has  once 
been  actually  realized  then  it  becomes  some- 
thing static,  may  be  transcended,  and  so  is  no 
longer  the  highest  ideal.  Hence,  from  this 
standpoint,  to  set  up  the  historical  Jesus  as  in 

in  Jesus,  who,  though  strictly  human,  exhibited  so  unique  a  spirit- 
ual life  "dass  wir  uns  in  dem  Menschen  Jesus  von  Gott  beriihrt 
wissen."  Jatho,  on  the  other  hand,  admits  the  desirability  of 
drawing  upon  the  past  for  all  possible  help  in  the  cultivation  of 
spiritual  life,  but  declines  to  regard  Jesus  so  authoritatively. 
He  is  inspirational  but  in  no  sense  normative:  "Was  je  von 
Wert  und  Bcdeutung  iiber  Gott  gesagt  worden  ist,  tragt  sein 
Mass  in  sich  selbst,  d.h.  in  der  Personlichkeit,  welche  es  sagte. 
Nur  fiir  diese  ist  es  massgebend,  fiir  keine  andere. "  See  Die 
Christliche  Welt,  XXV  (1911),  878  f.,  916-19,  946-51. 

'  Cf.  Lessing's  dictum:  "Zufallige  Geschichtswahrheiten  kon- 
nen  der  Beweis  von  notwendigen  Vemunftwahrheiten  nie  wer- 
den." 


Jesus'  Significance  for  Modern  Religioti     323 

any  real  sense  a  culminating  revelation  of  God, 
or  to  treat  him  and  his  teaching  as  normative 
for  later  generations,  is  condemned  on  principle. 
And  to  overlook  speculative  considerations  is 
felt  to  be  a  neglect  of  the  only  criterion  available 
for  the  adequate  estimation  of  religious  values. 
Nothing  can  be  of  permanent  religious  worth 
except  ideas  which  have  eternal  and  cosmic 
significance.  Even  Strauss  said:  "Our  age 
demands  to  be  led  in  Christology  to  the  idea  in 
the  fact,  to  the  race  in  the  individual;  a 
theology  which,  in  its  doctrines  on  the  Christ, 
stops  short  at  him  as  an  individual,  is  not 
properly  a  theology,  but  a  homily." 

It  is  also  urged  that  not  only  is  anything  in 
the  nature  of  a  historical  absolute  intrinsically 
impossible,  but  Jesus  is  not  so  ideal  as  liberal 
theology  supposes.  As  a  matter  of  historical 
fact,  it  is  said,  the  modern  picture  of  him 
cannot  be  established  with  certainty.  Well- 
hausen  remarks  that  we  cannot  go  back  to  him 
even  if  we  would, ^  while  others  think  we  know 

'And  further:  "Dadurch,  dass  man  den  historischen  Jesus 
zum  religiosen  Dogma  macht,  wird  man  schliesslich  gezwungen, 
wie  die  alten  Rationalisten  'die  historische  Bedingheit'  von  ihm 
abzustreifen  (Einleilung  in  die  drei  crslen  Evangelien,  Berlin,  1905, 
p.  115).  Cf.  Strauss:  "Der  Jesus  der  Geschichte,  der  Wissen- 
schaft,  ist  lediglich  ein  Problem,  ein  Problem  aber  kann  nicht 
Gegenstand  des  Glaubens,  nicht  Vorbild  des  Lebens  sein." 


324  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

him  too  well  as  a  man  of  his  own  age  to  admit 
of  the  "liberal"  idealization.  So  Schweitzer 
afhrms:  "It  is  nothing  less  than  a  misfortune 
for  modern  theology  that  it  mixes  history  with 
everything  and  ends  by  being  proud  of  the  skill 
with  which  it  finds  its  own  thoughts — even  to 
its  beggarly  pseudo-metaphysic  with  which  it 
has  banished  genuine  speculative  metaphysic 
from  the  sphere  of  religion — in  Jesus,  and 
represents  him  as  expressing  them."  This 
representation  of  him  is  thought  to  be  a  pure 
fiction,  "a  figure  designed  by  rationalism, 
endowed  with  life  by  liberalism,  and  clothed 
by  modern  theology  in  a  historical  garb."' 
Thus  exception  is  taken,  on  grounds  alleged  to 
be  purely  historical,  to  the  general  claim  of 
ideality  which  the  "liberals"  usually  make  for 
Jesus.  His  ethical  principles  are  declared  to 
be  antiquated,  if  indeed  they  are  not  to  be 
pronounced  more  seriously  defective  when 
judged  by  modern  standards.  And  his  attitude 
of  indifference  toward  the  ordinary  relations  of 
life,  his  other-worldliness,  makes  his  example 
and  teaching,  so  it  is  said,  relatively  worthless 
for  modern  needs.     The  liberals  are  charged 

'  The  Quest  for  the  Historical  Jesus  (London,  1910,  pp.  396  ff.; 
German,  Von  Reimarus  zu  Wrcdc,  Tubingen,  1906).  Cf.  Pfleid- 
erer,  Early  Christian  Conception  of  Christ  (London,  1905,  p.  12). 


•     Jesus' Significance  for  Modern  Religion     325 

with  absurdity  in  surrendering  Jesus'  world- 
view — phrased  as  it  is  in  terms  of  the  Ptolemaic 
astronomy  and  Jewish  apocalypticism — while 
they  yet  hold  to  the  validity  of  Jesus'  view  of 
life.  It  is  urged  that  this  too  should  be  set 
aside,  for  his  is  the  ideal  of  an  age  "which  knew 
nothing  of  the  demands  of  modern  life,  or  of  a 
further  and  further  development  of  humanity 
here  upon  this  planet."  Upon  the  most  burn- 
ing problems  of  our  day  he  had  nothing  to  say ; 
"the  state  and  the  family,  the  laborer  and  the 
employer,  these  fundamentals  of  our  existence 
have  for  him  no  worth.'" 

How  shall  moderns  find  their  way  through 
this  maze  of  opinion  about  Jesus  ?  Shall  they 
apply  the  metaphysical  test  for  determining  his 
worth  ?  If  so  they  have  a  long  road  to  travel, 
and  must  spend  much  time  and  energy  dis- 
cussing the  relative  merits  of  different  types  of 
speculation.  For  many  today  the  category  of 
supernaturalism,  at  least  in  its  traditional  form, 
seems  to  be  discredited,  while  others  still  think 
it  fully  valid.  Looking  at  Jesus  from  the 
speculative  point  of  view,  those  whose  world- 
view  is  such  that  special  value  attaches  to 
alleged  happenings  lying  outside  the  course  of 

'  F.  Lipsius  in  Berliner  Religionsgesprdch,  p.  80. 


326  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

natural  law  will  be  able  to  retain  the  termi- 
nology of  the  ancient  faith;  others  may  resort 
to  the  speculative  notions  of  later  times, 
perhaps  adopting  the  Hegelian  postulate  of  the 
divine  idea,  thus  removing  the  miracle  from 
the  physical  sphere  into  the  realm  of  ideas; 
still  others  will  wish  to  level  the  thought  of 
Jesus  down  to  the  ordinary  plane  of  human 
experience;  and  in  no  instance  will  the  results 
of  one  set  of  interpreters  seem  at  all  adequate 
to  those  who  view  him  from  a  different  stand- 
point. After  all  it  is  not  Jesus  and  his  worth, 
but  it  is  a  world- view  which  is  at  stake  here. 

Can  a  more  satisfactory  outcome  be  attained 
by  applying  the  historical  test  ?  The  answer 
to  the  question  would  seem  to  depend  largely 
upon  what  one  is  seeking  in  the  history.  Some- 
times historical  criticism  has  been  asked  to 
state  what  it  has  fixed  upon  as  the  pure  facts 
about  Jesus.  Can  it  tell  us  whether  he  was 
miraculously  born,  whether  he  was  really  God, 
whether  his  physical  body  was  raised  from  the 
tomb,  and  give  other  information  of  a  similar 
character?  To  answer  candidly,  the  historian 
cannot  give  a  final  reply  to  inquiries  of  this  sort. 
He  can  observe  the  place  of  these  items  in  the 
early  faith,  the  probable  date  of  their  appear- 


Jesus^  Significance  for  Modern  Religion    327 

ance  in  the  literature,  and  the  special  theological 
interests  which  they  originally  served,  but  he 
cannot  produce  a  mathematical  demonstration 
either  for  or  against  their  validity.  There  are 
two  main  reasons  why  he  cannot  do  this.  In 
the  first  place  his  earliest  sources  of  information 
were  not  given  literary  form  until  a  generation 
or  more  after  the  events,  and  so  the  narratives 
are  liable  to  be  colored  by  the  pious  fancy  of 
the  primitive  interpreter;  and  in  the  second 
place  these  problems  are  primarily  speculative 
rather  than  historical.  The  question  of  the 
quality  of  the  phenomena  is  involved,  and  it 
cannot  be  answered  apart  from  some  meta- 
physical theory.  Nor  is  a  type  of  historical 
study  which  is  content  with  determining  the 
content  of  primitive  belief  wholly  adequate  for 
modern  needs.  Much  of  the  phraseology  and 
many  of  the  thought-forms  of  primitive  Chris- 
tianity do  not  correspond  to  modern  men's 
ideas  of  what  constitutes  the  highest  values  in 
their  world  of  thought.  This  is  not  strange 
when  we  remember  that  modern  scientific  ideas, 
the  evolutionary  interpretation  of  the  world, 
the  comparative  study  of  religions,  and  the 
present  complex  conditions  of  society  must  of 
necessity  enter  into  the  making  of  any  vital 


328  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

type  of  modern  religious  thinking.  One  who 
goes  to  history  to  discover  an  infallible  christo- 
logical  dogma  to  be  made  normative  for  all 
men  in  modern  times  must  expect  to  be  dis- 
appointed in  his  search. 

Is  it  desirable  therefore  to  surrender  the 
notion  that  Jesus  has  any  essential  worth  for 
one  who  accepts  the  results  of  recent  historical 
research,  and  whose  world- view  is  of  the  so- 
called  modern  scientific  type  ?  Since  Jesus  can- 
not be  "proved"  to  be  an  anthropomorphized 
deity,  and  history  cannot  be  thought  to  contain 
infallible  dicta  for  modern  religion,  why  not 
break  the  "entangling alliance "  between  religion 
and  history  and  permit  the  present,  in  its  think- 
ing about  the  significance  of  Jesus,  to  be  abso- 
lutely a  law  unto  itself  ?  This  need  not  mean 
that  he  is  to  be  wholly  ignored,  but  his  worth 
would  be  merely  incidental  and  would  be  dis- 
covered in  the  contribution  which  thought  of  him 
has  made  to  the  history  of  religion  rather  than 
in  his  actual  historical  career.^ 

'On  the  relation  of  history  to  modern  religion  one  may  note 
Harnack,  Chlslianity  and  History;  Troeltsch,  Die  Absolutheit 
dgs  Christentums  und  die  Rdigionsgcschichtc  (Tubingen  and  Leip- 
zig, 1902),  and  "Glaube  und  Geschichte"  in  Die  Religion  in 
Geschichte  und  Gegenwart,  II  (Tubingen,  iQio,  cols.  1447-56); 
Lovejo)'^,  "The  Entangling  Alliance  of  Religion  and  History" 
in  the  Hibbert  Journal,  V  (1906-7),  258-76;  Eck,  Religion  und 
Geschichte  (Tubingen,  1907);   Wobbermin,  op.  cil. 


Jesus'  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     329 

The  rigid  application  of  this  method  is  also 
unsatisfactory.  In  the  first  place  it  lends  itself 
too  readily  to  subjectivism.  Merely  from  the"^ 
standpoint  of  scientific  method,  must  it  not  be 
said  that  moderns  are  already  exercising  too 
freely  the  liberty  of  making  what  they  please, 
out  of  Jesus  ?  One  has  only  to  recall  the  present 
situation  to  realize  the  danger  in  this  direction.' 
Some  are  saying  that  he  was  not  a  historical 
person,  or,  if  he  lived  at  all,  comparatively  noth- 
ing about  him  can  now  be  known.  For  others 
he  is  a  historical  character,  but  one  of  a  very 
different  sort  from  that  portrayed  in  the  gospels. 
Sometimes  his  Semitic  ancestry  is  doubted,  and 
he  is  even  made  the  exponent  of  Buddhistic 
doctrine,  teaching  a  self-redemption  to  be 
attained  by  a  complete  suppression  of  all  desire. 
Others  see  in  him  an  ideal  teacher  of  pantheism. 
For  others  he  appears  in  the  likeness  of  the  Old 
Testament  prophets  speaking  for  the  righteous 
God  of  Israel;  or,  again,  he  is  more  like  a 
contemporary  rabbi,  or  one  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment sages.  Many  represent  him  to  have  been 
a  neurotic  visionary  who  faced  death  in  the 

'Schweitzer,  The  Quest  of  the  Historical  Jesus;  Weinel,  Jesus 
im  neunzehnten  Jahrhundert  (Tubingen,  1907);  Pfannmiiller, 
Jesus  im  Urteil  der  Jahrhunderte  (Leipzig  und  Berlin,  1908), 
may  be  consulted  for  a  survey  of  types  of  interpretation. 


330  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

confidence  that  he  would  soon  return  upon  the 
clouds  to  vindicate  his  supernatural  claims. 
Still  others  find  in  him  an  ideal  social  reformer, 
and  even  the  exponent  of  anarchistic  principles. 
Again,  he  is  sometimes  thought  not  to  have 
been  a  religious  enthusiast  but  a  typical  ethical 
theorist.  For  others  he  stands  forth  as  an 
ideal  modern  theologian  who  took  special  pains 
in  his  teaching  to  furnish  future  generations 
with  doctrinal  proof-texts.  Nor  has  the  history 
failed  to  yield  for  still  others  specific  proof  of 
Jesus'  supernatural  personality. 

This  situation  makes  imperative  the  exercise 
of  a  discriminating  historical  research,  even  if 
one  has  no  further  end  in  view  than  the  interests 
of  scientific  scholarship.  But  it  is  also  funda- 
mental for  interpretation  of  Jesus.  If  one 
chooses  to  think  of  him  at  all,  intelligent 
reflection  must  proceed  from  the  most  objective 
facts  which  can  possibly  be  obtained.  And  to 
estimate  the  significance  of  historical  person- 
alities, one  always  desires  to  look  upon  the 
individuals,  in  so  far  as  this  is  possible,  as  they 
actually  appear  in  the  ordinary  relations  of 
daily  life.  Their  deeds  and  words  then  take  on 
a  new  vitality.  Modern  evaluation  of  Jesus 
cannot  break  with  history,  but  it  must,  if  any- 


Jesus'  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     33 1 

thing,   be   more   strictly   historical   than   past 
interpretations  have  been. 

Yet  it  is  not  to  be  imagined  that  an  accurate 
acquaintance  with  history  is  of  itself  a  guaranty 
of  piety,  or  that  the  discovery  of  the  actual 
historical  Jesus  will  supply  any  ready-made, 
normative  christological  dogma.  Piety  is  pri- 
marily a  personal  attainment,  with  respect  to 
which  the  historical  Jesus  can  have  significance 
only  as  a  stimulus  and  an  inspiration.  And 
Christology  is,  in  its  last  analysis,  an  estimate 
of  Jesus'  worth  for  the  individual  interpreter. 
Nor  can  history  claim  to  supply  the  ultimate 
realities  of  personal  religion.  The  essential 
item  of  religion  for  the  individual  is,  admittedly, 
a  spiritually  enlightened  religious  consciousness, 
and  to  know  what  Jesus  said  or  did,  or  how  he 
lived,  may  be  less  valuable  than  is  the  religious 
heritage  of  historical  Christianity  handed  down 
from  age  to  age  in  his  name.  It  is  sometimes 
said,  and  not  without  a  degree  of  truth,  that 
life's  religious  values  would  not  be  essentially 
affected  even  if  it  should  be  discovered  that 
Jesus  was  no  such  ideal  personage  as  history  rep- 
resents— if  indeed  belief  in  his  existence  should 
have  to  be  surrendered — since  it  is  primarily 
the  ideal  and  not  the  person  that  is  significant 


332  The  Uistor icily  oj  Jesus 

for  moderns.  Whether  Jesus  made  this  ideal, 
or  whether  someone  else  was  its  author  is, 
therefore,  thought  to  be  of  minor  importance.' 
On  the  other  hand  it  will  be  generally 
admitted  that  meditation  upon  the  life  and 
work  of  Jesus  has  been  eminently  valuable  in 
stimulating  religious  living  among  believers  in 
all  ages.  Various  ideas  about  him  were  some- 
times surrendered  to  meet  new  thought- 
demands,  but  to  have  given  up  entirely  the 
notion  of  his  existence,  and  so  to  lose  the 
inspiration  of  his  pious  personality,  would  have 
been  disastrous  for  Christian  faith  throughout 
the  greater  part  of  Christendom.  The  con- 
templation of  the  objective,  notwithstanding 
the  serious  perversion  to  which  it  is  always 
liable,  has  usually  been,  and  not  improbably 
will  continue  to  be,  an  important  means  of 
cultivating  religious  life.  Some  masterful  spirits 
may  be  able  to  reach  the  heights  of  religious 
attainment  otherwise,  but  the  majority  seem 
destined  to  climb  by  the  more  laborious  path 

'  In  the  Hal  Jesus  gelebl  ?  controversy  it  is  granted  by  some 
'"liberals,"  though  they  stoutly  defend  Jesus'  existence  on  his- 
torical grounds,  that  Christianity  would  not  collapse  if  belief 
in  Jesus'  historicity  had  to  be  surrendered.  Cf.  also  D.  C.  Mac- 
intosh, "Is  Belief  in  the  Historicity  of  Jesus  Indispensable  to 
Christian  Faith?"  in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology,  XV^ 
(1911),  362-72. 


Jesus^  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     333 

where  they  lean  hard  upon  the  past  for  support 
and  encouragement.  And  not  infrequently, 
too,  they,  with  their  narrower  vision  it  may  be, 
will  regard  those  who  have  come  up  some  other 
way  as  thieves  and  robbers.  Moreover,  there 
are  many  Christians  with  whom  the  intellectual 
aspects  of  life  hold  an  important  place,  and  they 
are  particularly  desirous  that  their  ideas  about 
Jesus  shall  be  compatible  with  historic  fact. 
Under  these  circumstances  it  is  not  a  question 
of  dispensing  with  history  but  of  enlightening 
its  pages  and  making  it  furnish  the  utmost 
possible  aid  for  the  practical  religious  needs  of 
modern  times. 

Historical  study,  it  would  seem,  can  render  a  L^ 
more  valuable  service  in  the  present  situation  by 
disclosing  the  grounds  of  the  primitive  Christians' 
faith,  than  by  attempting  to  supply  a  definite 
christological  dogma.  The  first  believers  cer- 
tainly had  their  doctrines,  yet  they  had  something 
else  more  fundamental.  We  have  already  seen 
that  the  Jesus  who  founded  Christianity  was  not 
a  mere  dogma.  He  was  a  religious  individual 
with  whom  the  disciples  had  intimate  personal 
association,  and  from  whom  emanated  an  influ- 
ence sufficiently  powerful  to  support  their  strong, 
bold  type  of  interpretation  and  to  inspire  the 


334  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

loyal  quality  of  life  which  they  exemplified. 
The  force  of  Jesus'  personality,  expressed  and 
perpetuated  in  the  work  of  the  disciples,  is 
amply  attested  in  the  success  of  the  new  move- 
ment. Judas  of  Gamala,  Barcochba,  and  even 
John  the  Baptist,  seem  to  have  had  quite  as 
many  adherents  to  preserve  their  memory  as 
did  Jesus,  and  the  circumstances  which  attended 
them  were  hardly  more  ad\'erse  than  those 
through  which  he  passed.  Yet  their  cause 
failed  while  his  succeeded — a  significant  testi- 
l^mony  to  the  vital  impress  his  personality  left 
upon  his  disciples.  The  exceptional  manner  in 
which  he  aw^akened  the  deeper  elements  of 
religious  faith  gave  the  new  religion  a  stimulus 
by  which  it  conquered  even  so  stubborn  a  foe 
as  Saul  of  Tarsus. 

Unquestionably  there  were  many  contribut- 
ing factors  in  the  genesis  of  the  primitive  faith. 
The  resurrection  appearances,  antecedent  mes- 
sianic notions,  possible  personal  claims  of  Jesus 
to  messiahship,  all  exerted  their  influence;  yet 
it  is  perfectly  clear,  as  we  have  earlier  remarked, 
that  these  things  were  not  uppermost  in  the 
disciples'  minds  when  they  first  recalled  their 
life  of  association  with  Jesus.  The  earliest 
gospel  tradition  is  explicit  in  stating  that  the 


Jesus"  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     335 

predictions  of  his  resurrection  fell  upon  unre- 
sponsive soil;  while  belief  in  his  messiahship 
did  not  take  shape  until  near  the  close  of  his 
ministry,  and  even  then  it  was  a  faltering  hope 
which  quickly  vanished  under  the  shadow  of 
the  cross.  We  are  not  to  imagine  that  memory  "^ 
of  the  historical  Jesus  was  in  any  large  measure 
at  first  linked  with  these  interpretative  ideas. 
That  this  fact  can  be  seen  in  the  present  form 
of  the  tradition  is  all  the  more  significant  in 
view  of  the  special  needs  for  the  framers  of  the 
tradition  to  show  that  the  later  faith  in  the  risen 
and  exalted  Messiah  was  consonant  with  the 
disciples'  actual  recollection  of  Jesus.  We  may 
believe  that  the  features  in  his  life  which  made 
the  most  abiding  impression  at  the  time  were 
not  any  claims  of  his  to  high  official  dignity, 
either  for  the  present  or  for  the  future,  (but  the 
strength  of  his  own  forceful  personality'^  Indeed"* 
it  may  be  that  we  shall  not  go  far  astray  if 
we  think  of  this  as  a  very  essential  factor  in  the 
genesis  of  the  resurrection  faith,  as  well  as  in 
stimulating  the  first  Christians'  messianic  belief.  > 
It  is  not  strange  that  Jesus'  early  followers 
should  ultimately  have  made  him  the  object 
of  their  worship,  or  that  men  today  should  be 
similarly  moved;  but  we  must  not  lose  sight  of 


336  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

the  fact  that  his  personal  religion  rather  than 
the  religion  about  him  was  of  fundamental 
importance.  He  lived  religiously  and  thus 
inspired  believers  to  live  similarly. 
1/  From  this  standpoint  his  worth  for  moderns 
lies  primarily  in  the  content  of  his  life,  as 
history  discloses  his  superior  personal  efficiency 
in  the  spiritual  sphere.  He  has  for  men  today 
the  same  essential  value  that  he  had  for  the 
primitive  disciples,  in  so  far  as  history  per- 
mits acquaintance  with  him,  and  he  answers 
modern  needs.  He  has  usually  been,  and  one 
may  venture  to  think  he  always  will  be, 
esteemed  according  to  the  degree  in  which  he 
aids  men  in  their  struggle  for  salvation.  But 
since  for  many  persons  today  it  is  no  longer 
possible  to  make  the  external  element  central 
in  the  thought  of  salvation,  some  forms  in 
which  his  worth  was  formerly  phrased  may 
have  to  be  set  aside.  Nevertheless  the  power 
of  his  person  and  his  message  continues  to  be 
a  mighty  inspiration  prompting  modern  men  to 
the  worthiest  spiritual  attainments  and  encour- 
aging them  to  realize  in  their  own  lives  a 
genuine  experience  of  God.  In  this  respect  he 
is  now,  as  he  always  has  been,  the  great  Savior. 
The  maintenance  of  harmonious  relations  with 


Jesus'  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     337 

the  divine,  and  the  emulation  of  the  Godlike 
life  in  one's  own  life,  is  still  a  great  religious 
ideal.  Moderns  may  wish  to  phrase  it  in  more 
secular  language  and  call  it  the  establishment 
of  right  relations  with  the  universe,  or  it  may 
be  stated  in  the  warmer,  richer  phraseology  of 
Jesus  and  called  the  demand  for  the  realization 
of  spiritual  sonship  to  God.  But  struggle  as 
we  may  with  terms,  the  ideal  remains,  and  not 
the  least  important  feature  in  Jesus'  significance 
for  many  moderns  will  be  the  fact  that  his 
religious  life  reveals  the  secret  of  transforming 
the  ideal  into  the  real. 

The  general  spirit  of  his  life  has  been  felt 
continually  and  broadly  wherever  the  memory 
has  been  preserved.  The  high  standards  of 
righteousness  maintained  by  Christians  today, 
their  emphasis  upon  brotherly  love,  the  control 
of  noble  ideals  in  their  lives,  are  a  heritage  from 
him.  The  theoretical  question  of  whether  these 
things  would  have  been  realized  without  him, 
however  answered,  does  not  alter  the  fact  that 
thousands  have  found  the  inspiration  which 
comes  from  him  their  mainstay  in  the  struggles 
of  life.  Many  persons  today  are  repeating  the 
experiences  of  the  past  in  this  respect,  and  even 
the  twentieth  century,  with  all  its  inventive 


338  The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 

skill,  can  scarcely  hope  to  furnish  a  better 
agency  for  the  propagation  of  righteousness 
and  personal  piety.  True,  Jesus  was  not  the 
first  to  admire  virtue  nor  the  first  to  preach 
righteousness.  Before  his  day  the  marble 
statue  of  goodness  had  been  unveiled  and  its 
graceful  proportions  admired ;  but  he  succeeded 
as  other  artists  had  not  in  putting  a  throbbing 
heart  within  that  marble  breast,  thus  infusing 
it  with  the  warmth  of  real  life.  He  gave  a 
personal  demonstration  of  the  possibilities  of 
noble  attainment  by  showing  that  trustful 
fellowship  with  the  Father  enabled  one  to  live 
the  life  of  personal  purity,  to  maintain  the 
optimistic  spirit,  to  cherish  the  attitude  of 
brotherly  kindness  and  social  service.  If  we 
could  peer  into  the  secrets  of  Christian  life  in 
past  ages  we  might  find  that  much  of  the  credit 
interpreters  have  taken  to  themselves  for 
presenting  Jesus  effectively  to  men  has  been 
quite  secondary  in  comparison  with  the  winning 
force  of  his  life.  The  power  of  Christianity  is 
in  its  life,  the  lives  of  believers  lived  in  likeness 
to  and  under  the  inspiration  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 
By  thus  seeking  the  basal  element  for  present 
thought  in  a  study  of  the  real  content  of  Jesus' 
life,  one  may  escape  the  perplexities  of  ecclesi- 


Jesus'  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     339 

astical  dogma  without  sacrificing  the  essential 
thing  which  inspired  the  creeds  and  yet  some- 
times eluded  them.  Failure  to  recognize  that 
the  personal  religious  life  of  Jesus  lay  at  the 
basis  of  all  genuine  interpretation  seems  to  have 
been  a  weakness  of  theologians  from  the 
beginning.  Even  the  first  disciples,  who  were 
deeply  impressed  by  their  life  of  association 
with  Jesus,  preferred  to  set  in  the  foreground 
their  own  inferences  about  the  meaning  of 
his  career.  And  eventually  the  efforts  of  later 
believers  to  account  for  the  original  force  of 
his  personality  became  entangled  in  grave 
logical  difficulties  regarding  such  problems  as 
how  he  could  be  both  truly  God  and  truly  man, 
or  how  he  could  be  God  by  the  side  of  God 
himself,  and  yet  Christians  hold  to  belief  in 
only  one  God.  The  creed  makers'  efforts  to 
fix  the  content  of  belief  by  much  definition  of 
phrases  answered  the  needs  of  their  day,  but^ 
modern  interpretation  must  go  behind  the 
dogmas  which  have  gathered  about  Jesus  and 
make  his  historical  personality  its  corner-stone.y 
And  it  would  not  be  surprising  if  this  should 
ultimately  mean  a  more  significant  apprecia- 
tion of  Jesus'  worth  for  religious  thought  than 
would  be  possible  on  the  basis  of  any  amount  of 


340  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

metaphysical  dualism  which  the  oriental  imagin- 
ation or  the  ancient  Greek  philosophy  was 
capable  of  inventing. 

Yet  we  may  at  first  be  disposed  to  exclaim : 
"They  have  taken  away  my  Lord  and  I  know 
not  where  they  have  laid  him."  As  the 
women  at  the  tomb  were  vainly  yet  anxiously 
seeking  the  living  among  the  dead,  so  it  fre- 
quently happens  that  seekers  after  truth 
experience  a  shock  when  they  find  their  former 
ideas  transformed  into  new  shapes  at  first 
hardly  recognizable.  But  if  the  new  conserve 
the  values  of  the  old  the  transformation  may 
ultimately  prove  a  blessing,  notwithstanding 
the  inconvenience  of  a  temporary  disturbance 
of  thought.  The  first  disciples  passed  through 
dark  hours  of  agonizing  experience  before  their 
new  faith  in  the  living  Lord  emerged,  but  it 
proved  to  be  a  new  power  in  their  lives  enabling 
them  to  retain  the  estimate  of  Jesus  which 
their  personal  contact  with  him  had  inspired. 
Indeed,  when  the  limitations  imposed  by  the 
earthly  relationship  were  removed  the  disciples 
were  able  to  paint  their  picture  of  his  worth 
with  far  bolder  strokes  than  had  formerly  been 
possible.  The  changes  in  christological  doctrine 
which  have  come  about  from  time  to  time  in 


Jesus^  Significance  for  Modern  Religion     341 

the  history  of  Christianity  have  sometimes  cost 
beHevers  pain,  yet  changes  were  necessary  if 
Christian  thought  of  Jesus  was  to  maintain  its 
vitahty. 

Newer  types  of  interpretation  seem  to  have 
proved  adequate  just  in  so  far  as  they  preserved 
the  vital  content  of  the  older  views,  and  at  the 
same  time  answered  the  thought-demands  of 
their  own  day.  Today  the  older  metaphysics, 
in  terms  of  which  Jesus  has  usually  been 
interpreted,  is  unsatisfactory  to  many  persons. 
To  meet  this  situation  efforts  are  now  being 
made  to  go  behind  all  former  christological 
theories  to  the  historical  Jesus,  and  with  a 
knowledge  of  his  life  as  a  basis  to  estimate  his 
significance  in  the  light  of  spiritual  rather  than 
external  relations.  It  will  doubtless  be  gen- 
erally conceded  that  this  method  is  in  harmony 
with  certain  phases  of  modern  thought,  but 
still  it  may  be  asked.  Does  it  conserve  those 
elements  which  made  the  older  Christology 
valuable  and  effective  ? 

At  the  basis  of  all  past  interpretation  of  Jesus 
lie  two  ideas  to  which  chief  worth  has  been 
attached:  men  have  found  in  him  their  ideal 
for  human  life,  and  they  have  regarded  him  as 
the    concrete    embodiment    of    their    highest 


342  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

thought  of  God.  These  values  have  been 
formally  expressed  in  the  doctrine  of  his  perfect 
humanity  on  the  one  hand  and  his  absolute 
deity  on  the  other.  All  christological  specula- 
tion may  be  said  to  have  described  its  orbit 
about  these  two  foci. 

No  one  is  likely  to  doubt  that  the  former  of 
these  underlying  values  is  preserved  by  the 
modem  historical  method  of  interpretation. 
Surely  nothing  could  bring  out  more  emphati- 
cally Jesus'  worth  as  an  ideal  for  life  than  the 
effort  to  fix  renewed  attention  upon  his  earthly 
career.  In  fact  modern  demands  are  not 
satisfied  with  a  merely  objective  contemplation 
of  his  career,  or  a  parrot-like  imitation  of  his 
action;  the  present  calls  for  men  who  not  only 
have  seen  Jesus  standing  in  a  niche  of  the  past, 
but  who  see  him  today  beckoning  them  on  to 
the  realization  of  the  noblest  attainments  in 
the  modern  world  of  action.  For  them  Jesus 
is  more  than  a  pattern  to  be  copied,  he  is  a 
demonstration  of  spiritual  power  to  be  felt 
today  by  those  who  have  received  the  unction 
of  his  spirit. 

Is  the  second  of  these  main  values  also 
conserved  ?  As  already  indicated,  the  doctrinal 
form  by  which  it  has  usually  been  expressed 


Jesus*  Significance  for  Modem  Religion    343 

presupposes  a  metaphysical  theory  now  become 
for  many  modern  minds  obsolete  and  unwork- 
able. According  to  its  presentation  God 
impinged  upon  the  universe  from  without, 
he  projected  himself  into  human  history,  he 
expressed  his  love  for  men  by  a  semi-legal 
transaction  making  salvation  possible ;  in  short, 
the  more  external  features  of  Jesus'  career 
were  coupled  with  current  notions  about  the 
deity  to  form  a  concrete  setting  for  these 
notions.  Without  question,  this  phase  of 
Jesus'  value  for  the  religious  experience  of  that 
age  had  to  be  estimated  in  this  currency  if 
estimated  at  all;  and  just  in  so  far  as  men 
today  find  greatest  satisfaction  in  thinking  of 
God  in  terms  of  externalism  will  they  still  need 
to  picture  Jesus  in  this  way  if  he  is  to  have 
important  religious  significance. 

But  the  converse  is  also  true.  Those  who 
feel  that  the  most  vital  experience  of  the  unseen 
can  be  adequately  pictured  only  in  spiritual 
terms  will  probably  derive  greater  religious 
satisfaction  from  meditating  upon  the  spiritual 
content  of  Jesus'  life.  Under  these  circum- 
stances it  will  seem  more  important  to  seek  in 
Jesus  help  for  worthy  living  and  enlightenment 
for  one's  thought  of  God  than  to  try  to  frame 


344  The  Historicity  of  Jesus 

an  interpretation  of  Jesus  in  the  language  of 
any  predetermined  metaphysical  theory.  The 
problem,  then,  is  not  to  decide  upon  the  kind 
of  Jesus  which  is  demanded  by  one's  ideas  of 
God,  but  to  attain  the  vision  of  God  which  a 
knowledge  of  Jesus  makes  possible.  Ancients 
and  moderns  alike  feel  that  God  who  is 
"unknown"  is  less  immediate  than  Jesus  who 
has  visibly  appeared  upon  the  stage  of  human 
history,  hence  Jesus  becomes  immediately  help- 
ful in  clarifying  and  enriching  human  experience 
of  the  divine.  In  his  loyal  service  for  humanity 
is  found  the  manifestation  of  divine  love ;  in  his 
religious  life  the  reality  and  power  of  spiritual 
communion  with  the  unseen  are  vividly  ex- 
pressed; his  teaching  and  his  conduct  inspire 
loyalty  to  the  divine  will ;  in  brief,  when  human 
life  is  brought  into  close  touch  with  Jesus'  life, 
he  so  clarifies  one's  sense  of  moral  obligations 
and  one's  consciousness  of  spiritual  realities  that 
he  becomes  a  most  valuable  aid  to  a  better 
vision  of  the  Father.  He  who  pictures  the 
unseen  Father  in  spiritual  likeness  to  Jesus  of 
Nazareth  will  find  a  new  meaning  in  the  words : 
"No  man  hath  seen  God  at  any  time;  the  only 
begotten  Son,  who  is  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father, 
he  hath  declared  him." 


INDICES 


SUBJECTS  AND  AUTHORS 


Aaron,  124. 

Acts,  spuriousness  of,  86. 

Adonis,  46,  68,  92  f.,  122,  125. 

Agrippa  II,  249. 

Akiba,  266. 

Albinus,  255. 

Alexander  the  Great,  50,  135. 

Alexander  Jannaeus,  48,  98  ff., 

III. 
Alexandria,  38,  49,  52,  107. 
Aim  (Ghillany),  34. 
Ananus,  250,  255  f. 
Anderson,  320. 
Anthropomorphizing  of  deities, 

I,  135,  i9i>  197,  230. 
Antioch,  103,  109,  186. 
Antiochus  Epiphanes,  120. 
Apocryphal  Gospels,  238,  259  f. 
Apollos,  114  f. 
Apostolic  Age,  15,  20. 
Apostolic  Fathers,  86, 120,  239. 
Aquila,  115. 
Aramaic,  211,  219. 
Arimathea,  46. 
Arnold,  C.  F.,  247. 
Asia  Minor,  118. 
Attis,  46,  92  f. 
Augustus,  99  f.,  141. 

Babylonia,  33,  44  f.,  141. 
Bacon,  66,  216,  265,  311. 
Bahrdt,  32,  35. 
Baptism,  55,  114  f. 
Barcochba,  334. 
Barnabas,  74,  187,  197. 
Bauer,  B.,  2,  35-9,  42,  62,  66, 

90  f.,  130,  178. 
Bauer,  W.,  238. 
Beelzebul,  168. 
Berendts,  256  ff. 


Berliner  Religionsgesprach,  40, 

54,  60,  325. 
Beth,  65. 

Bethlehem,  98,  116 
Bischoff,  267. 
Bithynia,  242. 
Bolland,  39,  44,  51  f. 
Bomemann,  65. 
Bosc,  2,Z- 
Bossi,  39. 

Bousset,  27  f.,  40,  102,  318. 
Bracciolini,  Poggio,  247. 
Brephol,  65. 
Broecker,  65. 
Bruckner,  63. 
Burkitt,  212. 
Burton,  213. 

Carpenter,  65. 

Celsus,  254. 

Charismata,   144  ff.,   169,   172. 

Cheyne,  116. 

Christianity,  modern,  40,  58; 
nature  of,  272  f.;  origin  of, 
IS,  38,  42,  45  f.,  49  ff.,  89  ff., 
136  f. ;  origin  in  gnosis,  46  ff ., 
53;  primitive  form  of,  43  f., 
57;  relation  to  history,  328  ff.; 
relation  to  other  religions, 
42,  67  f.,  271  f.;  a  social 
movement,  41;  early  use  of 
name,  244  f.,  250. 

Christ-idea,  57  f.,  236,  308. 

Christology,  development  of, 
306  ff.;  in  Jesus'  teaching, 
232;  primitive  form,  19,  28, 
226,  228,  235;  traditional 
type,  310  f.,  variations  of, 
309  ff. 

Chwolson,  65. 


345 


346 


The  Historicity  of  Jesus 


Claudius,  244  f. 
Clemen,  42,  65,  237. 
Clement  of  Alexandria,  210. 
Clement  of  Rome,  178  f.,  206, 

239,  241. 
Coe,  15. 
Conybeare,  106. 
Cyprus,  49,  125. 
CjTene,  46,  125. 

Daniel,  69. 

David,  98  f.,  102,  109,  :i6, 
148,  229. 

Deification  of  men,  135  f. 

Deissmann,  112. 

Deists,  6. 

Delbriick,  65. 

De  Loosten,  14  f. 

Denney,  310. 

De  Regia,  ss. 

Diaspora,  49. 

Dibelius,  66. 

Dietze,  65. 

Dio  Cassius,  245. 

Domitian,  38,  244. 

Drews,  39,  44,  54-60,  62,  64, 
72,  74!.,  88,  96,  113,  116, 
122,  124,  126,  128,  193,  320. 

Dunkmann,  63,  310. 

Dupuis,  32,  45. 

Eabani,  78  ff. 

Easter,  17. 

Eck,  328. 

Ecstasy,  17  f. 

Egypt,  33,  48,  102  f.,  105,  108, 

141,  260  f. 
Elijah,  55,  69,  162,  168. 
Elisha,  55. 
Enoch,  69. 
Ephesus,  184. 

Epiphanius,   47,   97-110,    124. 
Erbt,  45. 
Essees,  106  ff. 
Essenes,    33,    47,    53,    106  ff., 

120,  123,  232. 
Esser,  66. 


Eusebius,  74,  105,  107,  209  f., 

254. 
Exorcism,  in. 

Fiebig,  33,  65. 
Forsyth,  310. 
Frey,  260. 
Fumeaux,  247. 

Galilee,  46,  96. 

Garv'ie,  310. 

Geneval,  32. 

Gfrorer,  34. 

Gilgamesh,  44,  71,  78  ff. 

Gilgamesh  epic,  77  ff. 

Gnosis,  113. 

Gnosticism,  47,  50  ff.;  in  the 
gospels,  51  f.;  in  Judaism, 
53;  in   Paul's   writings,   49. 

Gnostics  of  Justin,  53. 

"God  of  the  Hebrews,"  inf. 

Goethals,  252,  260. 

Goguel,  244. 

Gospels,  date  of,  48,  137  ff., 
205  ff.;  historicity  of,  55, 
74  ff . ;  literary  relationships 
of,  212  ff.;  modern  criticism 
of,  203  ff . ;  mythical  char- 
acter of,  43;  origin  of,  51  f., 
77  ff.;  purpose   of,    139  ff. 

Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  52. 

Gospel  according  to  the  He- 
brews, 286. 

Granbery,  311. 

Greece,  33. 

Gressmann,  118. 

Griitzmacher,  65,  310. 

Haeckel,  320. 

Hamack,    20,    213,    215,    289, 

317.  328. 
Hartmann,  von,  320. 
Hauck,  65. 
Hegel,  35,  51,  320. 
Hegesippus,  255. 
Heitmiiller,  117. 
Hemerobaptists,  103. 


Indices 


347 


Hennell,  33. 

Herder,  315. 

Hermeticism,  47. 

Herod  Antipas,  46,  80. 

Herod  the  Great,  46,  99  f. 

Herodians,  120. 

Herodias,  46,  80. 

Hilgenfeld,  106. 

Hippolytus,  112  f. 

Hochart,  87,  247. 

Holy    Spirit,    46,    114  f.,    169, 

228. 
Holtzmann,  H.,  211,  213. 

Ignatius,  179,  206  f.,  240  f. 
Irenaeus,  205,  216. 
Isaiah,  69. 

James,  113,  251,  2545. 

Jason,  75,  96. 

Jatho,  322. 

Jensen,  39,  44,  62,  64,  71,  77- 
84.^ 

Jeremias,  63. 

Jerome,  255. 

Jerusalem,    96,    99,    161,    186, 

196  f.,  218;  fall  of,  254,  260  f. 

Jeshu,  loi. 

Jeshu  ben  Pandera,  48. 

Jeshu  ben  Stada,  48. 

Jesse,  no,  124. 

Jessees,  108  ff. 

Jesus,  baptism  of,  83,  155, 
227  f.,  238,  2855.;  betrayal 
of,  73;  crucifixion  of,  55; 
death  of,  18,  25,  76,  153  f., 
176;  derivation  of  name, 
123  f.;  an  Essene,  33;  God's 
attestation  of,  151  f.,  155  ff.; 
gospel  picture  of,  128  ff.; 
influence  of  his  life,  278  ff., 
337  ff.;  messianic  self-con- 
sciousness of,  i3ff.,42,288ff.; 
messiahship  of,  25  f.,  144  ff.; 
miracles  of,  4ff.,  159  f., 
167  ff.;  newness  of  teaching, 
231  ff.;  personal  religion  of, 


12  f.,  19  f.,  23  f.,  281  ff.; 
pre-Christian,  44,  47  f.,  49  f., 
54,  93  ff . ;  pre-existence  of, 
II,  126,  239;  psychology  of, 
12  f.;  relation  to  Moses,  161 
ff.;  religious  significance  of, 
27  ff.,  56  f.,  60  f.,  336  ff.; 
resurrection  of,  15  ff.,  55, 
144  f-,  17s,  234,  26s,  276  ff.; 
return  of,  183;  sanity  of, 
14  f.;  son  of  Joseph,  293; 
sonship  to  God,  19,  290  ff.; 
a  sun-god,  46;  his  teaching 
about  forgiveness,  298  f.; 
his  teaching  about  God, 
299  f . ;  his  teaching  about 
himself,  275;  his  teaching 
about  his  mission,  292  ff.; 
his  teaching  about  salva- 
tion, 297  ff.;  temptation  of, 
83;  transfiguration  of,  83, 
155,  162,  225. 

Jesus  ben  Pandera,  44. 

Jesus  son  of  Ananus,  166. 

Jesus  son  of  Sirach,  293. 

Jewish  testimony  to  Jesus, 
2645. 

Jews'   expulsion   from   Rome, 

245- 
John   the   Baptist,   49,    78  ff., 
104,  156,  228,  230,  232,  238, 
256,   260,   262,   286  ff.,   296, 

334- 
John  Mark,  107,  109,  197,  209. 
Jordan,  H.,  310. 
Josephus,  38,  86  f.,  95,  105  ff., 

119,    121,    164  ff.,  211,  245, 

249  ff.,  267  f. 
Joshua,  43,  54,  93. 
Joshua  =  Jesus,   48,   51,   95  ff., 

123. 
Joshua  ben  Pandera,  112. 
Judaism,  polytheism  in,  122  f.; 

sects  within,  47  f.,  119  ff. 
Judas  of  Gamala,  143,  260  ff., 

334- 
Judea,  41,  46,  98,  248. 


348 


The  Historicity  of  Jesus 


Julicher,  44,  64,  199,  220,  262. 
Justin  Martyr,  206,  241,  245, 

266. 
Justus,  249. 

Kalthofif,   39,   41  f.,   62,   90  f., 

129. 
Kapp,  40. 
Kant,  320. 
Kautsky,  41  f. 
Klein,  63. 
Kneib,  14. 
Koch,  H.,  215. 
Koch,  P.,  45. 
Kohler,  121. 
Krauss,  267. 
Kiihn,  65. 

Lactantius,  245. 
Lake,  16. 

Langsdorf,  von,  33. 
Lessing,  6,  8,  20,  322. 
Lipsius,  F.,  325. 
Lipsius,  R.  A.,  106. 
Logos,  II,  156. 
Lois)',  65  f.,  212,  216. 
Lord's  Supper,  55,  274. 
Losinsky,  41. 
Lovejoy,  328. 
Lublinski,  39,  53  f. 

Macintosh,  332. 

Magic,  loi;  use  of  Jesus' 
name  in,  116  f. 

Marcion,  179,  206,  208  f. 

Mareotis,  Lake,  107. 

Mary  (mother  of  Jesus),  44, 
96,  109. 

Massebieau,  106. 

Matthew  (apostle),  210  f.,  214. 

Maurenbrecher,  42. 

Mead,  39,  44,  46  ff.,  56,  62, 
116. 

Meffert,  63. 

Mehlhom,  66. 

Messiah,  advent  of,  171;  suffer- 
ing of,  117  ff. 


Meyer,  A.,  28,  199. 

Milky  Way,  46,  96. 

Miriam,  43,  96. 

Mithra,  93. 

"Modem  positivists, "  28. 

Moffatt,  211. 

Monotheism,  50. 

Moore,  G.  F.,  121. 

Moses,   55,   69,    161  f.,    164  f., 

168,  229,  249,  295. 
Muirhead,  66. 
MuUer,  216. 
Muratorian  Canon,  205  f. 

Naassenes,  53,  112. 
Nasarees,  102,  105. 
Nazarees,  102-5,  108,  124. 
Nazareth,    i,   89,    115  f.,    222, 

284. 
Nazareth  =  Galilee,  116. 
Nazarite,     78,     inf.,     114  f., 

124. 
Nazirees,  104  f.,  108. 
Nazirite,  103,  105. 
Nazorees,  102-5. 
Nazorite,  103. 
Nero,  38,  86,  244  ff. 
Nestle,  102. 
Niemojewski,  39,  44  ff. 
Nieuwenhuis,  40. 
Noack,  34. 
Nolloth,  310. 
Notowitsch,  S2- 

Orient,  42,  53,  93. 
Origen,  253  ff.,  258  266. 
Orosius,  245. 
Osiris,  46,  93. 
Ossees,  108  ff. 
Ossenes,  108  ff. 

Palestine,  i,  no. 
Papias,  206,  208  ff.,  214,  216. 
Paschal  lamb,  96. 
Passover,  96,  230. 
Paul,   Christianity  of,   125  ff.; 
Christology     of,     18,     119, 


Indices 


349 


126  ff.,     144  ff.;  eschatology 

of,      181  ff.;  historicity     of, 

48  f.;  knowledge    of    Jesus, 

43,     54,     73,     126,     192  ff.; 

relation  to  early  Christians, 

191,  195  ff.,  198  f. 
Pauline  epistles,  37,  49,  69  ff., 

72  ff.,  178  ff. 
Paulus,  6. 

Pentecost,  166,  168,  184. 
Persia,  53,  141. 
Peter,  69,  74,  79,  81,  107,  162, 

168,  187,  196  f.,  206,  209  f., 

279. 
Pfannmiiller,  329. 
Pfleiderer,  324. 
Pharisees,  120,  232. 
Philo,    38,    47,    102,    105-10, 

119,  121,  123,  249  f. 
Photius,  107,  249. 
Phny,  86,  242  ff.,  256. 
Polycarp,  206. 

Pontius  Pilate,  87,  240,  246  ff. 
Preaching  of  Peter,  210. 
Preuschen,  238. 
Priscilla,  115. 
Pseudepigraphic   writings,   69, 

204. 
Ptolemy  Philadelphus,  99. 

"Q,"iS8   213,  215,  289. 

Rasmussen,  14. 

Rationalism,  6,  314  f. 

Reimarus,  6. 

Ritschl,  315. 

Robertson,    J.    M.,    39,    43  f., 

56,  62. 
Rome,  38,  41,   102,   107,   184, 

210,  216,  244  ff. 
Ross,  247. 
Rossington,  65. 

Sadducees,  232. 

Salome,  46. 

Salvation,  Christian  idea  of, 
143  ff. ;  Jewish  idea  of,  142 ;  in 
non-Christian  religions,  141. 


Salvator,  7,^,. 

Samaritans,  108,  120. 

Samson,  104. 

Sanday,  15. 

Satan,  167,  169. 

Schaefer,  15. 

Schechter,  121,  124. 

Schleiermacher,  315. 

Schmidt,  F.  J.,  65. 

Schmidt,  N.,  166. 

Schmidtke,  102. 

Schmiedel,  71,  317. 

Schnehen,  von, 320. 

Schopenhauer,  319  f. 

Schiirer,  106,  252,  254  f.,  260. 

Schweitzer,  324,  329. 

Schwen,  102. 

Scott,  R.,  178. 

Seneca,  38. 

Shamash,  84  f. 

Silas,  197. 

Smith,  G.  B.,  28. 

Smith,  W.  B.,  39,  44,  49  f.,  56, 

62,  73,  88,  113,  116,  124. 
Socialism,  41  f. 
Soden,  von,  40,  64. 
Soltau,  252. 

Son  of  God,  54,  128,  157,  167. 
Son  of  man,  42. 
Stanton,  205. 
Steck,  71,  178. 
Steudel,  73. 
Stoics,  38,  41. 
Strack,  loi,  266. 
Strauss,  6  f.,  34  ff.,  323. 
Suetonius,  86,  244  ff.,  256. 
Supematuralism,  7,   12,   15  ff., 

28  ff.,  32,  313  ff. 

Tacitus,  86  f.,  245  ff.,  256,  267. 

Talmud,  44,  47  f.,  98,  loi, 
120,  266. 

Tammuz,  46,  93. 

Tarsus,  125. 

Tatian,  206. 

Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apos- 
tles, 117. 


350 


The  Historicity  oj  Jesus 


Tertullian,  245. 
Therapeutes,    47,    53,    107  ff. 

120,  123,  250. 
Theudas,  260  ff. 
Thikotter,  40. 
Tiberius,  245  f. 
Titius,  40. 
Titus,  186. 
Toland,  6. 

Tol^doth  Jeshu,  47,  264,  266. 
Trajan,  38,  242,  244. 
Troeltsch,  318,  328. 
Tschim,  40. 

Valensin,  65. 
Van  Manen,  52,  71. 
Vatke,  51. 
Venturini,  32,  35. 
Vergil,  141. 
Vespasian,  251,  261. 
Virolleaud,  39. 
Volney,  32. 
Volter,  178. 

Wagner,  320. 
Warfield,  310. 
Warschauer,  316. 


Weidel,  14. 

Weinel,  64,  95,  262,  308,  329. 

Weiss,  B.,  213. 

Weiss,  J.,  64,  132,  189  f.,  196, 

199,  216,  252,  311. 
Weisse,  213. 
Weizsacker,  213. 
Wellhausen,    157,    199  f.,    215, 

289,  323. 
Wendland,  106. 
Wendling,  216. 
Werner,  14. 
Wemle,  27,  317,  321  f. 
Wessely,  iii. 
Whittaker,  39,  52. 
Wilke,  213. 
Winckler,  45. 
Windisch,  42,  66. 
Wobbermin,  318,  328. 
Wrede,  128,  191, 

Xisuthros,  79  ff. 

Zealots,  232,  245,  292. 
Zimmern,  63. 
Zodiac,  97. 


SCRIPTURE  REFERENCES 


Genesis 
49:10 

Deuteronomy 
18:22 


98 
.165 


Psalms 
132:11  f 98 

II  Esdras 

14:46  ff 47,  120 

Wisdom  of  Solomon 
2:13, i6t-i8. .294 
3:1,4 294 

Sirach 

2:8 293 

34:16,  19 293 


Sirach 

35:3 

36: 1-3. ■ 

39:1-3 162 

Matthew 
1:18-25. 
3:17.... 
4: i-ii . . 

5:21-48 164 

5:44  f 290 

6:9  ff 290 

11:2-6 158 

11:9-11 163 

11:25 289 

12:27 160, 168 

12:28 158 


■293 
•293 


147 
147 
159 


Indices 


351 


Matthew 

12:38  f 150 

12:39 151 

12:41  f 159 

12:42 163 

13:58 222 

16: 1-4 150 

16:4 151 

16:18 274 

17:3  f 162 

17:5 147 

19:16  f 222 

21:32 287 

23:37 28s 

24:29 183 

26:26-28 274 

28:19 274 

Mark 

i:ii 147 

2:  27 163 

3:17 210 

4:9-12 163 

5:41 210 

6:5 222 

7:22 210 

7:34 210 

8: 11-13 150 

8:14-21,27-33151 

9:1 183,217 

9:4  f 162 

9:7 147,157 

10:5  f 163 

10: 17  f 222 

10:46 210 

12:42 210 

13:3 210 

13:10 183 

13:24-27 183 

13:30 183 

i3:3of 217 

14:  2,  32 210 

14:22-24 274 

15:42 210 

Luke 

1:2  f 213 

1:26-38 147 


Luke 

3:21  f 289 

3:22 147 

4:1-13 159 

4:18 159 

6:28 290 

7:18-23 158 

7:26-28 163 

9:3^33 162 

9:35 147 

10: 17-20 169 

10:  21 289 

1 1 : 2-4 290 

11:16,  29 150 

11: 19 160 

11:20 158,  168 

11:29 151 

11:31 163 

11:31  f 159 

12:54-56 150 

18: 18  f 222 

21:24 183 

22:19  f 274 

John 

5:2 211 

7:46 164 

8:46 164 

12:28  £f 157 

17:3 153 

19:13, 17 211 

21:24 204 

Acts 

1:1 215 

2:22 158, 168 

2:32 158 

2:32  flf 146 

3:13-15 146 

3:13-15,     18, 
20,  23,  26. .  160 f. 

3:15 158 

3:22 157 

6:1 273 

13:33 146 

15:1,39 273 

18:25 49,114 

i8:2sff 115 


3S2 


The  Historicity  of  Jesus 


Romans 

1:3 126,  194 

1:4 126,  146 

S:i2ff 194 

5:18  f 126 

10:9 145,265 

13:12 152,181 

14:10 152,  181 

15:3 126 

15:18  f 145 

15:19-23 218 

15:25 184 

I  Corinthians 
i:7f.... 
i:7ff... 

1 :  10 273 

...  149 


,152 
182 


,194 
152 


22  f. 

2:2.  . 

4:5 152, 182 

5:5-8 126 

7:10, 12, 25..  .194 

7:29  ff 181 

9:1 196 

9:5 74, 126 

9:14 194 

11: 1 201 

":23 73,  126,  194 

11:23-26 274 

12:1  ff 145 

12:13 114 

iS:3-.-.... ...153 

15:4-8,  14  f..  .  .145 

15:5 126 

15:5  ff, 73,194 


.194 
.184 


196 
,126 
126 


I  Corinthians 

15:6 

16:5-9 

II  Corinthians 

5:10 152, 

5:16.... 
5:21.... 

8:9 

io:i 126 

12:12 145 

Galatians 

1:12,  16 126 

1:14 265 

1:15—2:1 184 

1:17  f 126 

1:19 74,  126 

2:11 273 


3:2,5- 
4:4-  ■  • 


145 
126 


Philippians 

1:6,  10 182 

2:sff 126 

2:9  f 117,  126,  146 

4:5 182 

I  Thessalonians 

I : 10. ... 

3:13 

4:15- ••• 
4:15-18. 
5:2, 23. . 

II  Peter 

3:8-10 183 


.182 
.182 
.194 
.182 
,182 


^^ 


/> 


:'^ 


